=====================================
All Rights Reserved  1998
Reproduction Without Permission Not Permitted
=====================================

 

 
Part I : 


Resisting Wayward Prelates: According to the Saints  

by John Vennari  


Part II:


Appendix

 

In the Gospel, Our Lord Jesus Christ taught that "the truth shall make
you free." This is true in both the natural and the supernatural orders.

In the natural order it is easily demonstrated. When we know the truth
that two plus two equals four,  we are free from thousands of mathematical
errors. When we know the way from Philadelphia to Baltimore, we are
free from endless hours of being lost on the journey. When we've read
the operating manual for our new computer, we are free from countless
days of frustrating guesswork. So too in the supernatural order, when
we know the truth of Adam and Eve and original sin, we are free from
the errors of the evolutionists. When we know the truth that Jesus Christ
is God-Incarnate, we are free from following every false religious leader
in history; past, present and future. When we know that Christ established
only one Church, we are free from the seduction of man-made religions.

Hence, when we know the truth of what the Saints taught regarding
resisting wayward Prelates, we are free from such errors as blind obedience
and co-operation with unorthodoxy.  In times of great confusion, such
as our own day, many Catholics are baffled on how to react. Some claim
that we must obey our leaders no matter what, and that to voice the
slightest disagreement with them is a manifestation of disrespect and
disobedience. Not only is this way of thinking incorrect, it also paralyzes
Catholics into inaction and heightens their confusion.  What we hope to
demonstrate is that, according to the Saints, and according to the consistent
teaching of the Church, Catholics are bound to resist even prelates if they
deviate from the unchanging doctrine and Tradition of the Catholic Church.

 Many also believe that it is impossible for a Supreme Pontiff to deviate
in any way from the straight and narrow. This is partially correct. The Holy
Ghost will always protect a Pope from defining error as truth, for example,
from teaching error in an ex cathedra pronouncement.


	(1) That is certain. But it is demonstrable from the teachings
and  writings of the Saints that even the highest authority in the Church
may fail in his duty and may drift into deviations from Church Teaching. 
When Pope St. Pius X condemned the Modernists in his encyclical Pascendi,
he stated:



	 "One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to
the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock is
that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of  the faith
delivered to the saints, rejecting profane novelties ..."

 Explaining the imperative of taking action against the innovators, Pius
 declared 

"We may no longer keep silent, lest we should seem to fail
 in our essential duty."



(2)  These words of Pope St. Pius X illustrate that it is possible for
 a pope to fail in  his essential duty of safeguarding the purity of 
the faith.  In the Coronation Oath of the Pope, that had been instituted
around the 9th Century, the Pope swears, 


"I vow to change nothing of the received tradition and nothing
thereof I have found before me guarded by  my God-pleasing
predecessors, to encroach, to alter (change), or to permit any
 innovation therein."  



After enunciating a few specifics, the Pope swears: 


"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or
should permit that it be executed, Thou willst not be merciful
to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without
exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone - be
it ourselves or be it another - who would dare to undertake anything 
new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic tradition and the
purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion ..."




(3) This Oath, which had been sworn by Popes for thirteen centuries,
is ample demonstration that it is possible for a Pope to institute or permit
unlawful changes that are out of step with Church Tradition. If it were
impossible for the Popes to deviate, then there would be no need for this
severe Oath. This is also why our beloved Popes need our fervent prayers
and daily sacrifices.  Jesus told Sister Lucy of Fatima, "Pray a great deal
for the Holy Father ..."  

Within the "Mass of a Supreme Pontiff", we pray to God, "Grant, we
beseech Thee, that through the intercession of Blessed N. Your
Supreme Pontiff, she [the Catholic Church] always remain in Thy
truth, and be safe at all times under Thy protection."


 Catholics never pray that the Blessed Trinity always remain a Trinity, 
because the essence of  the Trinity can never change.  Catholics never
pray that God will allow the Blessed Mother to stay in Heaven, because
it is impossible that Our Lady should ever be dismissed from Paradise.
Yet Catholics do pray that the Church "always remain in Thy truth". This
demonstrates that it is possible for Church leaders to deviate from that
Truth and from their duty, to the great detriment of countless souls.  This
does not mean that the Faithful may arbitrarily judge their prelates:  


1) A Catholic may never judge the undeclared interior motives of 
any individual, prelate or pontiff. Hence, even if a prelate is following
the most liberal line of action, we may not judge his interior motives
 (unless he declares his motives openly).  The prelate may truly believe
 that he is working for the good of the Church.  


2)	A Catholic may assess the actions of a prelate. The prelate is
either in line with unchangeable Catholic Tradition or he is not. If the
prelate's teaching, actions and commands are out of step with Tradition,
then the prelate may be resisted, no matter how well-meaning he may be.

 In resisting  wayward prelates, Catholics are not espousing the arbitrary
"follow your conscience" tenet of the liberals. Nor are Catholics indulging
in the "private judgement" of Protestants. In resisting wayward prelates,
Catholics are simply making a decision based on the unchanging teaching
and tradition of  the Faith. It is a Divine, objective standard outside of 
themselves.  Also, forming a balanced  judgement on such a prelate does
not amount to condemning him. Only God, who sees the heart, may judge
a man's motives.  


As mentioned earlier, Our Lord said that "the truth shall make you free." 
It is hoped that what follows serves to free Catholics from a false sense
of "thou shalt not judge" and from a false sense of obedience. When our 
Lord warns "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing", He is commanding us to
form a judgement.  


Presented here is a collection of quotes from the Saints, Popes, and
esteemed private doctors whose teachings have been sanctioned by
the Catholic Church. These quotes outline the proper line of  action
for Catholics in resisting wayward prelates who have lost their grip
on orthodoxy.  In no way is this intended to incite Catholics to
disrespectful rebellion. We are simply looking to these saints for guidance
on how to think and act when faced with a great crisis of Faith even
in the highest pinnacles of  the Church.  


Saint Thomas Aquinas, in many passages of his works, upholds
the principle that the faithful can  rebuke and admonish Prelates. 
For example: 

 "There being an imminent danger for the faith,
prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by their subjects." 


Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him
publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of
Faith. And, as the Glosa of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14),
`Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if
sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction
as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects'."6  Referring to the
same episode, in which Saint Paul resisted Saint Peter `to his face', Saint
Thomas teaches: 


"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it
was not light: there was a danger for the preservation of evangelical
truth ... The way it took place was appropriate; since it was public
and manifest. For this reason, Saint Paul writes: I spoke to Cephas',
that is, Peter, before everyone', since the simulation practiced by
Saint Peter was fraught with danger to everyone. In 1 Tim. 5:20,
we read: Admonish those who sin before everyone.' This should 
be understood to refer to manifest sins, not hidden ones, since
in these cases one should proceed according to the rules proper
to fraternal correction."



The Angelic Doctor also shows how this passage of the Scriptures
contains teachings not only for Hierarchs but for the faithful as well: 

"To the Prelates [was given an example] of humility so that
 they do not refuse to accept reprehensions from their inferiors
and subjects; and to the subjects, an example of zeal and liberty
so they will not fear to correct their Prelates, above all when the
crime is public and entails a danger for many."



In his Comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Saint
Thomas teaches how respectfully correcting a Prelate who sins
is a work of mercy all the greater as the Hierarch's position is higher:
 

"Fraternal correction, being a spiritual alms, is a work of mercy. 
But mercy is due mainly to the Prelate since he runs the greatest
danger. Hence Saint Augustine says in Regula (n. 11, PL 32, 1384):
Have pity not only on yourselves, but on them as well', that is,
on the Prelates among you who run a danger as high as the
position they occupy.' Therefore, fraternal correction extends
also to the Prelates.  

"Furthermore, in the Book of Ecclessiastes, it says that God imposed
on each one duties toward his neighbor.' Now, a Prelate is our neighbor.
Therefore, we must correct him when he sins ...  Some say  that
fraternal correction does not extend to the Prelates either because
man should not raise his voice against Heaven, or because the
Prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However,
this does not happen, since when they sin, the Prelates do not
represent Heaven and, therefore, must be corrected. And those
who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them,
but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake. ... 

For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal
correction extends also to the Prelates, so that they may be corrected
by their subjects."



In addition to Saint Thomas Aquinas, other prominent Saints and 
Doctors have also pronounced on the right and duty of the faithful
to resist, in grave circumstances. For example:  


Saint Augustine thus comments on the episode of Saint Paul's public
resistance to Saint Peter: 


"Peter accepted with holy and pious humility the useful observation
 Saint Paul had made,  inspired by the freedom of love, thus leaving 
for posterity a rare example for them not to despise being corrected
by their inferiors whenever they have strayed from the right way."(10)


 Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, OP: 

"Caietano, in the same work defending the superiority of the Pope
 over the Council, says in chap. 27: 


`Therefore, a Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys
 the Church, for example, by refusing to give ecclesiastical
 benefits other than money or in exchange for services; 
and with all obedience and respect, the possession of such
 benefits must be denied to those who bought them.' And
 Silvestre (Prierias), in the entry Pope, 4, asks: ` What 
should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs,
destroys the Church?'

And in 15: ` What should be done if the Pope wanted, without
reason, to abrogate  Positive Law?' To which he answers:

`He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to
act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was
evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension.' 
 

"Consequently, if he wished to give away the whole treasure
of the Church or the patrimony of Saint Peter to his relatives,
if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not
be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged
to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the
power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is
doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if
the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can
be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented ...  


"Second proof of the thesis. By Natural Law it is licit to repel
violence with violence.  Now then, with such orders and
dispensations the Pope exerts violence, since he acts against
the Law, as we have proven. Therefore, it is licit to resist him. 

As Caietano observes, we do not affirm all this in the sense that
someone could have competence to judge the Pope or have
authority over him, but meaning that it is licit to defend oneself.
 Indeed, anyone has the right to resist an unjust act, to try to prevent
it and to defend himself."


Fr. Francisco Suarez, SJ: 


"If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs,
 he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something
manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it
will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force
 he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a
just defense."



Saint Robert Bellarmine, the great paladin of the Counter-Reformation, maintains: 

"Just as it is licit to  resist the Pontiff that aggresses
 the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses
 the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who
attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to
resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing
his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to
judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper
to a superior."  


Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, SJ, shows that Saint Augustine, Saint
Ambrose, Saint Bede, Saint Anselm and other Fathers teach that
Saint Paul resisted Saint Peter publicly "so that the public scandal
given by Saint Peter was amended by a likewise public reprehension."

Later n, a Lapide argues that "superiors can be, with humble charity,
reprehended by their nferiors in the defense of truth"; that is what
Saint Augustine (Epistula  19), Saint Cyprian, aint Gregory, Saint
Thomas and others cited above declare about this passage (Gal.
2:11). They clearly teach that Saint Peter, being a superior, was
reprehended by Saint Paul. With good reason, therefore, Saint
Gregory said (Homilia 18 in Ezechielem): `Peter kept quiet so that,
being first in the apostolic hierarchy, he would also be first in
humility.' And Saint Augustine wrote (Epistula 19 ad 
Hieronymum): 

`By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by 
inferiors, Saint Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier
than that of Saint Paul as he taught that in the defense of truth and
with charity, inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without
fear'."

Pope Innocent III explains that a pope can fall into heresy:  


"The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who,
therefore, (should a pope`lose his savor') could cast
him out or trample him underfoot - Since of the pope
it is said `gather thy flock into thy fold'. Truly, he should
not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly
glory in his honor and high estate, because the less 
he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God.  
"Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can
be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already
judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy;
because he who does not believe is already judged."  

Pope Innocent III went on to explain, 

"In such a case it should be said of him: `If the salt
 should lose its  savor, it is good for nothing but to
 be cast out and trampled underfoot by men'."


Dom Prosper Gu,r-anger, Abbot of Solesmes, notes: 



"When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it behooves the flock to
defend itself in the first place. Doctrine normally flows from the
bishops down to the faithful people, and subjects should not judge
their chiefs.  

But, in the treasure of Revelation, there are certain points that every
Christian necessarily knows and  must obligatorily defend."


Francisco Xavier Wernz and Pedro Vidal, theologians at the
beginning of the 20th Century, citing Suarez, admit the licitness
of resisting a bad Pope: "The just means to be employed against a
bad Pope are, according to Suarez (Defensio Fidei Catholicae, lib.
IV, cap. 6, nn. 17-18), a more abundant help from the grace of
God, the special protection of one's Guardian Angel, the prayer
of the Universal Church admonishment or fraternal correction in
private or even in public, as well as the legitimate self-defense
against aggression, whether physical or moral."

Antonio Peinador, CMF, a contemporary Spanish theologian, adopts
the sentences of those who preceded him: "' Also a subject may be
obliged to fraternally correct his superior' (Summa theologiae, II.II,
q.33, a.4). For also a superior can be spiritually indigent, and
nothing prevents him from being  liberated from such indigence
by his subjects. Nevertheless, `in the correction in which subjects
reprehend their prelates, they must act in a proper manner, that is,
without insolence and harshness but with meekness and reverence' (ad 2)."

St. Vincent of Lerins said: 


"What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church
detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What
choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison,
no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at
once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity
 which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty."


St. Thomas Aquinas taught: 

 "Hold firmly that your/our faith is identical with that of the ancients. 
Deny  this and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

    

  John Vennari is editor of Catholic Family News. For footnoted copy of this 
article or for subscriptions to Catholic Family News for one year (12 Issues only 24.00 USA; 
34.00 Canada/Mexico; 57.00 Europe/Asia.)  Call 1-905-871-6292. 


APPENDIX:
==================================================================
      

JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA, O.P. (1388-1468)
GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"

        "Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope  
can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are  
not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that  
he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good.  To know in  
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts  
of the Apostles:  'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,  
were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the  
articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of  
the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such  
commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...."  (Summa de Ecclesia 
[1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council 
of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
      
    
        "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ 
despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity 
of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ.  The Pope 
can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, 
or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law.  
by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church 
because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience.  In 
this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....

        "He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal 
Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or 
if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world 
by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See.  
Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for 
example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal 
customs and rites of the Church.  This same holds true for other aspects 
of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one 
unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated 
places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross 
as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, 
relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.

        "By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the 
observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope 
could fall into schism.  The conclusion is sound and the premises are 
not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he 
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been 
established for the common order of the Church.  Thus it is that [Pope] 
Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a 
Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the 
universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal 
customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."  
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])


ST. GIACOMO TOMMASO DE VIO GAETANI [CAJETAN], O.P. (1469-1534)
THEOLOGIAN AND CARDINAL

        St. Cajetan points out that the famous axiom "Ubi Petrus, ibi  
Ecclesia" [Where the Pope is, there is also the Church] holds true only  
when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to  
the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor  
is he in the Church."  (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa 
IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)
    

ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)
CARDINAL AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH

      "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to  
be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases automatically to be a 
Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and 
punished by the Church.  All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching 
that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.  St. Cyprian, 
in particular, laid great stress on this point."  (De Romano Pontifice, 
II.30)
 
     
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)

        "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the 
Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the 
Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and 
at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor (a term that includes 
the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him 
be anathema." (Session VII, Canon 13)

 
FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)
CALLED BY POPE PAUL V DOCTOR EXIMIUS ET PIUS (MOST EXALTED AND PIOUS)

       "And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were  
unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, 
as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as 
both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites 
of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition."
 (De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1)

       
        "If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should 
not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to 
justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he 
attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation 
appropriate to a just defense."  (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)

ST. FRANCIS DE SALES (1567-1622)   

        "Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto 
from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either 
deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic 
See."


ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, C.S.S.R. (1696-1787)
BISHOP AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH

        "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at 
once fall from the pontificate.  If, however, God were to permit a pope to 
become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be 
pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant."  (Verita della Fede, 
Pt. III, Ch. VIII.9-10)



FR. HENRY IGNATIUS DUDLEY RYDER (1837-1907)
THEOLOGIAN

        "It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for  
heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by  
heresy he ceases to be Pope.  There is no variance on this head amongst  
theologians that I know of, except that some, with Turrecremata and  
Bellarmine, hold tha by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope:  whilst  
others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not  
formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was  
formally deposed.

        "The privilege of infallible teaching belongs only to an undoubted 
Pope; and on the claims of a doubtful, disputed Pope the Church has the 
right of judging.  No single example can be produced of a Pope whose 
orthodoxy and succession ws undoubted upon whom the Church pretended to 
sit in judgment....  During a contested Papacy the state of things 
approximates to that of an interregnum.  The exercise of active 
infallability is suspended."  (Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns & 
Oates, pp. 30-31)
         
     
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1907)
Vol. VII, p. 261

        "It has been a common teaching of theologians that a validly 
elected pope can fall into heresy and so vacate the See of Peter by 
automatic tacit resignation."


FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)

        "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not 
so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but 
that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully 
expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles."
( Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi 
 chap. 4, "De Romani Pontificis Infallibili  Magisterio)


POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958)

        "The sacred pastors are not the inventors and composers of the 
Gospel, but merely the authorized guardians and preachers divinely 
established.  Wherefore, we ourselves, and all bishops with us, can and 
must repat the words of Jesus Christ:  "My teaching is not my own, but 
his who sent me" (John 7:16)....

        "Therefore, we are not teachers of a doctrine born of the human 
mind, but we are in conscience bound to embrace and follow the doctrine 
which Christ Our Lord taught and which He solemnly commanded His 
Apostles and their successors to teach (Matthew 28:19-20)."  (Encyclical 
Letter "Ad Sinarum Gentem," October 7, 1954)

        This great pope of our century speaks of the limitations of his 
office, acknowledging that even the pope has no power to innovate upon 
the Faith, but only to pass down the Apostolic teaching.

  
 Back To Main Page