Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

Da Silveira makes his point even more clearly when he presents it in formal terms, viz. “Now, the
facts of the official <strong>an</strong>d public life of a visible <strong>an</strong>d perfect society, only become juridically
consummated when they are notorious <strong>an</strong>d publicly divulged.” Which is, as we have already seen, a
complete invention for which no authority is cited <strong>an</strong>d for which none could be cited.
And as if this weren’t sufficiently clear, da Silveira provides his own final nail, so to speak, by
admitting that he differs with the only authorities he has referred to in the course of his tortuous
<strong>an</strong>d unsuccessful argument that Our Lord Jesus Christ would sustain the jurisdiction of a Pope who
disappeared into heresy. He writes, “Note that the argumentation of which we avail ourselves is not
the same as that of Saint Robert Bellarmine, taken up again by Wernz-Vidal. They start from the
principle that he who is not, in <strong>an</strong>y way, a member of the Church, c<strong>an</strong>not be its head. Such
argument appears true to us, provided that one adds a clause to it according to which Our Lord
would sustain the jurisdiction of a Pope heretic as long as his heresy had not become notorious <strong>an</strong>d
publicly divulged. However even formulated thus, this argument raises <strong>an</strong>other question, very much
disputed: that of the exact moment when a heretic ceases to be a member of the Church. According
to what we think, whatever be that moment, the Pope eventually heretic would only effectively fall
from the Pontificate when his defection in the faith turned notorious <strong>an</strong>d publicly divulged.” (Some
emphasis added.)
Here we have a complete admission that da Silveira is not presenting <strong>an</strong>d defending the position of
Bellarmine (or Wernz-Vidal), <strong>an</strong>d further, that he has developed his own position – if you like, a
“sixth opinion” in this long-st<strong>an</strong>ding discussion. He even goes so far as to contrast his own argument
with the Bellarmine <strong>an</strong>d Wernz-Vidal approach, which rests solidly on the cause <strong>an</strong>d effect stated
above – that is, that a non-member of the Church c<strong>an</strong>not possess habitual jurisdiction. Da Silveira is
so far from basing his own argument on that same truth, that he brings in the irrelev<strong>an</strong>t discussion
about the exact degree of publicity which suffices to strip a m<strong>an</strong> of membership in the Church. It is
certain that a public (or “m<strong>an</strong>ifest”) heretic is not a member. That is all that this particular
discussion needs, which is why Bellarmine, who was certainly familiar with the degrees of publicity
of crimes, did not bring it in. The same observation c<strong>an</strong> be made concerning the greatest of modern
c<strong>an</strong>onists Wernz <strong>an</strong>d Vidal, so that one could not argue that since Bellarmine’s time this particular
question developed <strong>an</strong>y differently.
Interestingly, Fr. Boulet states that da Silveira’s theory is “perfectly consistent with the thought of St.
Robert Bellarmine.” I don’t see how he could have concluded such a thing. When Fr. Boulet adds
that “Father Garrigou-Lagr<strong>an</strong>ge reaches the same conclusion,” <strong>an</strong>d proceeds to outline briefly the
theory of the saintly Dominic<strong>an</strong>, which is entirely contrary to Bellarmine’s, we must part comp<strong>an</strong>y
completely. Garrigou-Lagr<strong>an</strong>ge teaches that a heretic Pope would remain Pope; Bellarmine teaches
that he would lose the papacy ipso facto by operation of divine law. The two theories are
diametrically opposed.
26