On this blog, I have previously addressed a concerning error regarding the extent of the protection against error afforded the Pope by the Holy Spirit in his non-infallible ordinary magisterium, which has been promoted by a small coterie of theologians based on an idiosyncratic understanding of the First Vatican Council.

While these misguided efforts had previously been pursued in less exulted forums, since they have now found their way into the peer reviewed journal Theological Studies in the form of an article by Emmett O’Regan under the title The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: Was the Idea of a Heretical Pope Formally Excluded at the First Vatican Council?[1], it seems an opportune time to again address the fatal flaw in these arguments.

As this article was announced as forthcoming some time ago, I had been looking forward to it with eager anticipation, in the hope the author may have taken the opportunity to remedy the defects in his thesis as it had been presented in less scholarly outlets such as the Italian newspaper La Stampa back in 2017.

Unfortunately O’Regan did not choose that path, instead leaving the crux of his argument an unargued assertion without even the benefit of a substantive footnote to support it, simply claiming that:

“Just before the ratification of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor Aeternus, the Bishop of Brixen, Vinzenz Ferrer Gasser (1809–1879), delivered a Relatio in the final session of the council as the spokesperson of the Deputation De Fide. This Relatio, which contained the “long notes” summarizing the conciliar sessions, explained the finer details of the draft version of chapter 4 of Pastor Aeternus before the Council Fathers took their final votes to ratify its contents. Bishop Gasser’s Relatio explained the particular nuances of Pastor Aeternus, so that the bishops were fully informed about what they were actually voting on. Speaking on behalf of the Deputation De Fide, Gasser underscored the fact that a clause contained in St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” outlined in book 4, chapter VI of De Romano Pontifice was about to be raised to the “dignity of a dogma.”” [Emphasis added]

However this claim, that the passage from Bellarmine that Gasser indicated would be raised to the dignity of a dogma came from book 4, chapter VI of Bellarmine’s book De Romano Pontifice (rather than a separate passage in book 4, chapter II of that same work), needs to be more than asserted. Indeed, it is demonstrably a misattribution, contested by scholars eminent enough to be cited by O’Regan by his own article for other ends such as Dr. John P. Joy[2] and Dr. Christian D. Washburn[3].

Indeed the failure by O’Regan to even attempt to support this fundamentally and fatally flawed claim in his thesis, despite his being well aware that it is contested by notable scholars well beyond this humble blog, would seem to rise to the level of making his article misleading and deceptive.

While the flawed nature of this claim by O’Regan has already been demonstrated on this blog previously, in a manner which need little revision given the lack of further support provided in his Theological Studies article, it seems worthwhile to represent it here as follows for convenience’s sake.

1.0 The Gasser Relatio

An assessment of the claim made by O’Regan, reproduced above, needs to start with the relevant passage of Bishop Gasser’s relatio which noted the First Vatican Council was to raise Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” to the “dignity of a dogma:

“As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.“[Emphasis added]

Before we can confidently opine on the meaning of this passage however, it is necessary to have recourse to the work by Bellarmine to which Gasser repeatedly refers, to determine what in fact is the unstated opinion “Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place”.

And therefore it is to this work, which all agree is Book 4 of Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice, to which we must now turn.

2.0 Bellarmine and De Romano Pontifice

Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice, On the Roman Pontiff, was the counter-reformation saint’s theological treatise aimed at defending the papacy and its claims against Protestant and Eastern Orthodox objections. In Book 4 in particular, he dealt specifically with papal infallibility, and his treatment was influential prior to and at the First Vatican Council.

In this work, Bellarmine deals with the views of Pighius on more than one occasion, across multiple chapters. Therefore in order to see which passages are intended by Gasser, it is first necessary to review Gasser’s references to determine the identifying features which need to be looked for, so that they can be recognised in De Romano Pontifice.

In this regard, it can be seen from Gasser’s own words where he makes reference to both “the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself … in book 4, chapter VI”, that there are two citations to Bellarmine in play. These are:

• Firstly, the citation made by the Council Father to whom Gasser is responding (being the Irish Bishop David Moriarty of Kerry and the German Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler of Mainz), as part of that Council Father’s charge that Pastor Aeternus was seeking to dogmatize “the extreme opinion of Albert Pighius” (“the First Citation”); and

• Secondly, the citation made by Gasser himself, to Chapter VI of Book 4 (“the Second Citation”).

Further from the Latin text of the intervention of Moriarty himself, we find his citation was simply the charge that if the Pope is infallible, then it must follow that the opinion of Pighius which is called extreme (i.e. by Bellarmine) is being adopted[4]:

“Si ideo infallibilis pontifex, quia in nullo casu licet se separare a fundamento sentio amplectendam esse sententiam, quae vocatur extrema Albert Pighii.” [Emphasis added]

2.1 The First Citation

In relation to the First Citation, we can further see from the relatio, that it certainly has the following identifying features at least:

1. It includes an opinion, adduced by Bellarmine in the “fourth place”, which is consistent with the dogmatic definition proposed by Pastor Aeternus.

• This opinion is called by Bellarmine the “most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion“.

We may also, moving slightly beyond the absolutely certain, infer from the relatio that the First Citation may:

• Contrast this fourth opinion, as Gasser does, as a more moderate path compared to the view of Pighius.

• Refer, as did the Council Father who cited it, to the view of Pighius as “extreme”.

• Be separate from the citation made by Gasser to Chapter VI of Book 4, as suggested by Gasser’s statement regarding “the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself … in book 4, chapter VI”.

Guided by these identifying features, we may then ask the question if all of them are to be found in a single passage from Book 4 of De Romano Pontifice, which we can then rightly recognise as the First Citation.

Fortuitously, as it turns out we can quite easily do so in Chapter II of De Romano Pontifice’s Book 4, in which Bellarmine lists four different available opinions on the extent of papal infallibility as follows[5]:

“With such things being laid out, only four different opinions remain.

1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this in fact has happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors even of general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as we will show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err even with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope, but with the Church or a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is on another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics …

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted, and we will state a few propositions so that it can be understood and confirmed more easily.” [Emphasis added]

In particular, checking off our identifying features, we find that Chapter II does include:

1. An opinion adduced by Bellarmine in fourth place, which is indeed consistent with the First Vatican Council’s proposed dogma, being the “fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way”[6].

• Bellarmine affirming this fourth opinion is “very certain and must be asserted”.

• Bellarmine contrasting this fourth opinion, with that of Pighius, which is enumerated as the third opinion.

• Bellarmine calling this third opinion, being that attributed to Pighius, as extreme[7].

• A separation from the citation made by Gasser to Chapter VI of Book 4.

Further, it is worth noting this identification is even clearer when considered in the underlying Latin of both Gasser and Bellarmine, especially in relation to fourth opinion being called the “most certain and assured“. For example in the Latin of Gasser, this is rendered as:

“[E]t quam vocat certissimam et asserendam, vel potius semetipsum retractando, sententiam communissimam et certam”. [Emphasis added]

And in the Latin of Bellarmine, the fourth opinion in Chapter II is called:

“[H]aec est comunissima opinion fere omnium Catholicorum … quarta certissima est et asserenda”. [Emphasis added]

Finally if we turn to another Council Father at Vatican I, Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, we can also see where Bellarmine as noted by Gasser “corrected himself” to refer to this fourth opinion in Chapter II of Book 4 as “the most common and certain opinion“. Cardinal Manning, in his work The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff[8], explains that:

“The fourth opinion is the most certain, and to be asserted [Bellarm. Controv. de Summo Pontif. lib. iv. cap. 2.].

Bellarmine in later years reviewed his ‘Controversies,’ and wrote of this point as follows:-

‘This opinion is more rightly the common judgement of Catholics; for opinion implies uncertainty, and we hold this judgement to be certain.’” [Emphasis added]

2.2 The Second Citation

In relation to the Second Citation, the identification is somewhat more straight forward, being that it is clearly a reference to a passage:

1. In Chapter VI of Book 4.

• Referring to the view of Pighius.

• Which includes the quote “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith“.

This passage can indeed be found in Chapter VI of Book 4 of De Romano Pontifice, which comprises the last of four propositions offered by Bellarmine, to support why the “fourth opinion” he adduces in Chapter II (as discussed above) is in fact the most common and certain. Chapter VI states, in full, that[9]:

“The fourth proposition. It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as ‘Pope’ can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith. It is proved:

1) because it seems to require the sweet disposition of the providence of God.

For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,” that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne. How, I ask, will a heretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the true faith? Certainly God can wrench the confession of the true faith out of the heart of a heretic just as he placed the words in the mouth of Balaam’s ass. Still, this will be a great violence, and not in keeping with the providence of God that sweetly disposes all things.

2) It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thing cannot be.” [Emphasis added]

3.0 The Teaching of the First Vatican Council

With the benefit of the full passages from Bellarmine cited by the relatio, the substance of Gasser’s response to the unjust accusation that Pastor Aeternus would raise the extreme opinion of Pighius to a dogma, becomes very clear.

In short Gasser was explicitly teaching that the dogma of Pastor Aeternus is:

• *Not* the extreme view of Pighius listed by Bellarmine in third place in Chapter II of Book 4 of De Romano Pontifice, and judged by Bellarmine to merely be a pious opinion, which is probable but not certain.

• Instead the “very common” and “very certain” view preferred by Bellarmine, and adduced as his fourth opinion in Chapter II of Book 4, that “whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way”.

That the dogma represents this more limited view outlined by Bellarmine in Chapter II, and not the more expansively one given by him in Chapter VI, is also confirmed in more detail by Gasser later in his relatio. In this passage, Gasser makes clear why infallibility cannot be absolute, but instead must be limited by the conditions for infallibility provided by Pastor Aeternus and Bellarmine’s fourth opinion in Chapter II:

“Note well. It is asked in what sense the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is “absolute.” I reply and openly admit: In no sense is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to God alone, who is the first and essential truth and who is never able to deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions. What those conditions may be should be deduced not “a priori” but from the very promise or manifestation of the will of Christ.

Now what follows from the promise of Christ, made to Peter and his successors, as far as these conditions are concerned? He promised Peter the gift of inerrancy in Peter’s relation to the Universal Church: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it …” (Mt. 16:18). “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep” (Jn. 21:13-17). Peter, placed outside this relation to the universal Church, does not enjoy in his successors this charism of truth which comes from that certain promise of Christ.

Therefore, in reality, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason “of the subject,” that is when the Pope, constituted in the chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge: it is restricted by reason of the “object,” i.e., when treating of matters of faith and morals; and by reason of the “act” itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful …

There is contained in the definition the act, or the quality and condition of the act of an infallible pontifical definition, i.e., the Pontiff is said to be infallible when he speaks “ex cathedra.” This formula is received in the schools, and the meaning of this formula as it is found in the very body of the definition is as follows: when the supreme Pontiff speaks “ex cathedra,” not, first of all, when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.

Secondly, not just any manner of proposing the doctrine is sufficient even when he is exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher. Rather, there is required the manifest intention of defining doctrine, either of putting an end to a doubt about a certain doctrine or of defining a thing, giving a definitive judgment and proposing that doctrine as one which must be held by the Universal Church.

This last point is indeed something intrinsic to every dogmatic definition of faith or morals which is taught by the supreme pastor and teacher of the Universal Church and which is to be held by the Universal Church. Indeed this very property and note of a definition, properly so-called, should be expressed, at least in some way, since he is defining doctrine to be held by the Universal Church.” [Emphasis added]

This conclusion is also shared and confirmed by scholars of the relatio, including the translator of the standard English edition Rev. James T. O’Connor, who states in a note to his rendering of the relatio that[10]:

“Before completing his general relatio and turning to the suggested correction to the Draft, Gasser considers one last charge of those opposed to the Draft, viz., that is it simply “canonizing” the most extreme pro-papal opinion of one school of theology, that of Albert Pighius.

Albert Pighius (Pigge) was a Dutch theologian (c. 1490-1542) and a strong defender of a papal infallibility in a sometimes exaggerated form. He is generally understood to have defended the thesis that the Pope, even as a private person, was incapable of falling in heresy. Using Robert Bellarmine as a source, Gasser maintains this is a probable and pious opinion, but, it is not this opinion that the Draft proposes to define since Gasser has been at pains to stress that the Draft is treating the Pope in his role as a public person, supreme teacher of the Church, when he defines doctrine of faith or morals for the entire Church, a position Bellarmine held as “common and certain.”” [Emphasis added]

Similarly Dr. Christian D. Washburn, a professor of dogmatic theology, has more recently explained[11]:

“In a speech on June 28, 1870, Bishop David Moriarty objected that the deputation responsible for drafting the schema was attempting to promote the extreme opinion of the sixteenth-century Dutch theologian Albert Pighius (c.1490–1542), who held that the pope could never fall into formal heresy in any capacity as pope …

On July 11, 1870, Bishop Vinzenz Gasser (1809–79) took more than three hours to read a relatio explaining the second schema of Pastor Aeternus. At the end of his relatio, Gasser expressed his disbelief that some of the council fathers had charged the drafters with attempting to promote an “extreme” view of papal infallibility. Gasser explained that the council’s doctrine is neither Pighius’ opinion nor an extreme form of infallibility. Rather, he asserted that what was being defined by the council is the “fourth opinion” contained in St. Robert Bellarmine’s (1542–1621) famous De Controversiis, which states “in a certain measure, whether the pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot in any way define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church.” Bellarmine thought that this view was “the most common and certain opinion” because it was held by almost all schools of theology. Ultimately, it was this opinion that the council defined.” [Emphasis added]

4.0 The Error

The basis for the claims made by O’Regan in his article is that the unstated opinion “Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place” referred to be Gasser’s relatio, is not in fact the fourth opinion listed by Bellarmine in Chapter II of Book 4, but is rather the view offered by Bellarmine as his fourth proposition in Chapter VI.

While O’Regan fails to provide any support for his identification of Chapter VI as what I have called in this article the First Citation, some has been offered by other proponents of his view such as Ronald L. Conte Jr. and Dr. Robert L. Fastiggi[12], who have noted Chapter VI:

• Is explicitly cited by Gasser in the relatio in respect of the view of Pighius; and
• Comprises an opinion adduced by Bellarmine in “fourth place”.

However, as already shown above, it is clear this argument is based on a crude and untenable misreading of the relatio. In particular, the identification of Chapter VI as the First Citation cannot be supported, as:

• While Chapter VI does indeed relate to an opinion adduced by Bellarmine in “fourth place”, it is never called by Bellarmine the “most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion“.

• Bellarmine instead only allows the fourth opinion in Chapter VI to be “probable and pious”.

Accordingly as the fourth proposition in Chapter VI does not answer to Gasser’s explicit description of the First Citation, let alone the further identifying features of it I have proposed in 2.1 above, O’Regan’s attribution of it as the one noted by Gasser as being raised to the dignity of a dogma is clearly in error and must be rejected.

Correction

An earlier version of this article incorrectly quoted the Latin of Bishop David Moriarty’s intervention at Vatican I, as reading “in nullo esse licet”, rather than the correct “in nullo casu licet”. Thank you to the assistance of the author “quarens”, whose own article here identified this mistake, as well as further expanding on the arguments made here.

---

[1] Emmett O’Regan, ‘The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: Was the Idea of a Heretical Pope Formally Excluded at the First Vatican Council?’, Theological Studies, 84(4), 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639231206089

[2] Dr. John P. Joy, cited in Footnote 16 of O’Regan’s The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See, disputed O’Regan’s identification in John P. Joy, ‘Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility’, Nova et Vetera, vol. 19, no. 1, Winter 2021, Page 33-61. In an early version of Dr Joy’s article, made available online prior to its publication in Nova et Vetera, he noted:

“[I]t must be said that this argument assumes that the First Vatican Council, by raising a conclusion of St. Robert Bellarmine to the status of a dogma, must also have made into dogmas all the reasons adduced by Bellarmine in support of his conclusion. But this does not follow. The official relatio explicitly states that it was not the intention of the council to dogmatize the extreme opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine describes as pious and probable (Msi 52: 1218 C). Rather, the doctrine contained in the council’s teaching is the ‘fourth opinion’ adduced by Bellarmine (Ibid.), which is that “in a certain measure, whether the pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot in any way define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church” (de Romano pontifice, IV, 2). This rules out the possibility of error when the pope defines a doctrine to be believed by the whole Church; but it does not rule out the possibility of error when the pope proposes a doctrine of faith or morals in his authentic magisterium without defining it as to be believed by the whole Church.

Now Bellarmine proceeds to offer four further propositions in support of this ‘fourth opinion’, one of which is indeed the position of Pighius. But it does not follow that the council’s endorsement of Bellarmine’s ‘fourth opinion’ entails an endorsement of all the further reasons adduced by him in support of that opinion, and it is especially absurd to argue that it entails an endorsement of that further proposition which the official relatio explicitly rejects as being contained in the meaning of its definition, according to the words of Bishop Gasser: “From this it appears that the doctrine contained in the schema is not that of Albert Pighius, nor of any extreme school…”” [Emphasis added]

[3] Dr. Christian D. Washburn, cited in Footnotes 4, 12 and 35 of O’Regan’s The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See, disputed O’Regan’s identification in Christian D. Washburn, ‘Pastor Aeternus, Liberalism, and the Limits of Papal Authority’, Horizons: The Journal of the College Theology Society, vol. 47, no. 1, June 2020, Page 124-125.

[4] Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Collectio conciliorum recentiorum ecclesiae universae, Volume 52, Arnhem Holland, 1927, col. 926. Similar interventions by Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler of Mainz can be found at col. 207 and col. 894-898.

[5] St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2 (De Controversiis), Mediatrix Press, 2016, Page 511.

[6] In the Latin, Bellarmine renders his fourth opinion, as “Quarta sententia est quodammodo in medio. Pontificem, sive haereticus esse possit, sive non, non posse ullo modo definire aliquid haereticum a tota Ecclesia credendum: haec est comunissima opinion fere omnium Catholicorum” [Emphasis added]

[7] In the Latin, Bellarmine renders his third opinion, as “Tertia sententia est in alio extremo, Pontificem non posse ullo modo esse haereticum, nec docere publice haeresim, etiamsi solus rem aliquam definiat”.[Emphasis added]

[8] Henry Edward Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, London, Longmans, Green and Co, 1869, Page 60. This is a reference to St. Robert Bellarmine, Rocognitio librorum omnium, in Opera Omnia, vol. 1, ed. Justinus Fevre (Paris: Ludovicus Vives, 1870, 12).

[9] St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2 (De Controversiis), Mediatrix Press, 2016, Page 532.

[10] Vincent Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, trans. James T. O’Connor, Boston, Ignatius Press, 2008, Note 29.

[11] Christian D. Washburn, ‘Pastor Aeternus, Liberalism, and the Limits of Papal Authority’, Horizons: The Journal of the College Theology Society, vol. 47, no. 1, June 2020, Page 124-125.

[12] Ronald L. Conte Jr. has advanced this argument a number of times, including here and here.