Over at OnePeterFive, a recent article claims that Bishop Strickland, and hypothetically other Bishops, ought to refuse to be removed from their diocese, if said deposition is unjust. This post will explain why such a position is schismatic and is based on heresy.

The 1P5 article, which is presented as a dialog between “Servideus” and “Paulinus”, proposes that a Pope loses his authority when his doctrine or discipline goes gravely astray:

1P5: “Servideus: That raises the really interesting ecclesiological question: Is it possible for a pope to act so contrary to the common good and to justice in a given situation that his act is invalid, that it has no force—not that it’s merely an imperfect law or command, but not a command at all, not a law at all? Is that possible?

“Paulinus: The answer of the tradition of the Church is yes, that is possible.”

False. The ancient constant teaching of the Church — by Saints, Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and Councils — is that the Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith (as well as other charisms), and therefore the Roman Pontiff cannot err gravely in doctrine or discipline, and cannot gravely fail in faith by apostasy, heresy, idolatry, schism or in any other way. This doctrine was confirmed infallibly by the First Vatican Council, was taught by Pope Saint Agatho and the Third Council of Constantinople in the Pope’s letter accepted into the acts of the Council (Actio XVIII), and was referenced recently by the incoming Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Fernandez. Jesus gave this charism to Peter and his successors, as described in Luke 22:32.

{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

The Church has constantly taught one and the same interpretation of that passage of Sacred Scripture, namely that every Roman Pontiff has the charism of truth and never-failing faith. And notice that this same charism of never-failing faith has the effect in the grace of God and in the work of the Holy Spirit to confirm the successors of the other Apostles so that they, too, remain never-failing in faith, though only as a body.

Question: “Is it possible for a pope to act so contrary to the common good and to justice in a given situation that his act is invalid, that it has no force.?”

Answer: No, for prayer and promise of Christ the Lord, by the prevenient grace of God in the Holy Spirit, absolutely prevents Peter and each of his successors from acting “so contrary to the common good and to justice” that his acts (his exercise of the Keys of Peter over doctrine and discipline) would be invalid. Since the Pope and the body of Bishops led by him are prevented from any such grave errors on doctrine or discipline, it is not possible for the exercise of Papal authority, or the exercise of the authority of the Apostolic College led by the Pope, to go so far astray as to become invalid.

The comparison made by the 1P5 article with a secular government which goes far astray is not valid, as Christ gifted His Church with indefectibility and with the papal charisms.

However, the removal of an individual Bishop or priest, even if it were hypothetically unjust, is not prevented by these charisms. So while I utterly reject the schismatic argument that a Pope could go so far astray that his exercise of papal authority over doctrine and discipline is invalid, Pope can err to a limited extent in what is non-infallible. The important thing to understand about a seemingly-unjust deposition of a Bishop or priest is that the authority of the Pope is not made invalid by such an error (or apparent error). Since the Pope does not and cannot err gravely against doctrine or discipline, his acts, even if unjust to some extent, remain valid and in force.

For example, Pope Saint John XXIII restricted the ability of Padre Pio (Saint Pio) to say Mass and removed his license to preach, thereby restricting him to private Masses with relatively few persons permitted to attend. Later, Pope Saint John would admit that he erred, saying that he was not ill willed toward Father Pio, but rather ill informed. The same point can be made about restrictions on the Diary of Saint Faustina, later removed by the Apostolic See. And while these errors might seem grave within the particular case in question, they do not gravely harm the Church or the faithful as a body.

And we must note the obedience of many different holy persons in Church history to unfavorable decisions of the Church. The example of such holy persons is to obey and pray, not to disobey and condemn.

But in the case of Bishop Strickland, and his possible impending removal from his diocese, I must also point out that a judgment by him or his supporters that such a deposition is unjust is a fallible decision. Popes can err to some extent in non-infallible decisions. But Popes are protected from grave errors of the type that would invalidate their authority. Thus an erroneous deposition of a Bishop is still a valid exercise of the authority of Christ exercised by the Pope. Whereas the deposed Bishop, crying out that he thinks in his fallible opinion that his own removal is unjust, does not have the authority to oppose the Pope.

For if that were the case, then every exercise of the authority of the Church over doctrine and discipline, by any Pope or Bishop or religious superior, could be claimed to be unjust and therefore null and void. The effect would be the loss of the effectiveness of that authority, which is Christ’s authority over Christ’s flock. So it is not the case that some among the faithful, or the particular Bishop in question, can judge a deposition to be unjust and therefore call it null and void.

Submission to Church authority is required for the unity of the Church. Refusal of submission to the Pope or to the body of Bishops led by the Pope is schism. Formal schism rightly carries the penalty, under divine law and Church law, of automatic excommunication. If Bishop Strickland is removed by the Pope, and if he refuses to be removed, he is excommunicated (latae sententiae), by the very nature of the act of schism itself.

Pope Leo XIII: “15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.” [Satis Cognitum]

The Pope is never deprived of the right and power of ruling, even if he errs — and he cannot err to such an extent over doctrine or discipline that his right and power of ruling would be invalid. But a Bishop and his supporters who refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff are schismatics who are separated from the fold and are outside of the edifice of the Church itself.

Note well that formal cooperation with schism, such as by public approval and support for a schismatic Bishop or schismatic group, is intrinsically evil and carries the same penalty of automatic excommunication. (This point is clearly seen in the case of excommunication for abortion, where all those who formally cooperate with the abortion are also excommunicated, per Evangelium Vitae.)

But it is also true that many of the papal opponents, especially those who have repeatedly obstinately publicly opposed Pope Francis, other Popes, Vatican II and even Vatican I, are already excommunicated for multiple grave acts of schism and heresy. They pretend to defend Tradition against the Pope and Bishops, but they are outside the edifice itself of the Church, which is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition.

The article at 1P5 goes on to claim that the authority of each Bishop is from Christ, and so the Bishop who the Pope attempts to depose can claim, on the basis of his own judgment, that his removal is unjust, and therefore claim that the Pope lacks the authority to remove him.

The refutation of this argument is found in Christ’s words in the Gospel of Matthew:
{16:16} Simon Peter responded by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
{16:17} And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven.
{16:18} And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
{16:19} And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”

Whatever the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, binds or releases on earth is bound or released “even in heaven”. And so no one can argue that Christ in heaven agrees with them, against the Pope, or that Christ in heaven is the source of their episcopal authority, against the Pope. For the authority of the Vicar of Christ is the very authority of Christ.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium: “But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock….”

Pope Leo XIII: “It is necessary, therefore, to bear this in mind, viz., that nothing was conferred on the apostles apart from Peter, but that several things were conferred upon Peter apart from the Apostles. St. John Chrysostom in explaining the words of Christ asks: “Why, passing over the others, does He speak to Peter about these things?” And he replies unhesitatingly and at once, “Because he was pre-eminent among the Apostles, the mouthpiece of the Disciples, and the head of the college” (Hom. lxxxviii. in Joan., n. I). He alone was designated as the foundation of the Church. To him He gave the power of binding and loosing; to him alone was given the power of feeding. On the other hand, whatever authority and office the Apostles received, they received in conjunction with Peter. “If the divine benignity willed anything to be in common between him and the other princes, whatever He did not deny to the others He gave only through him. So that whereas Peter alone received many things, He conferred nothing on any of the rest without Peter participating in it” (S. Leo M. sermo iv., cap. 2).” [Satis Cognitum 14]

Pope Saint Leo the great is quoted above, approvingly by Pope Leo XIII. Christ conferred “nothing” on the rest of the Apostles “without Peter participating”.

Thus, a Bishop cannot refuse to be deposed, neither on the basis that his authority as Bishop is from Christ apart from Peter and his successors, nor on the basis of the Bishop’s own fallible judgment that the Pope has erred in removing him.

To refuse to accept the doctrine and discipline of the Popes and the body of Bishops whenever you and your peers believe that they have erred is a complete rejection of the authority of Christ in the Church. Each Bishop, priest, deacon, religious, or layperson then becomes effectively a Pope unto themselves, judging everything and rejecting all that is contrary to their own judgments. Such persons become a Church unto themselves, and inwardly only worship themselves, not Christ.

Ronald L Conte Jr