As we have established within the Core Argument1 and within these Additional Arguments2, heretics cannot hold office due to Divine law; this separation between heretic and ecclesiastical office is not a result of applied penalities, but is automatic and results from the very nature of heresy itself.

​

Nonetheless, there may be a lingering notion that, if heresy results in an automatic loss of office, a renunciation results in an automatic return to an office. This is false. And we will show this to be false for multiple reasons.

​

However, before we proceed, it is worth noting: for our present situation and the discussion about the “Vatican II popes”, the invalid “cardinals” and the rest of the Novus Ordo hierarchy, the question of returning to office does not apply because such individuals never held legitimate Catholic office to begin with. However, assuming that they have received valid Baptisms, such individuals still have the possibility of becoming repentant heretics. Therefore, we here consider the general question of whether a repentant heretic can hold office after reconciliation.

​

Therefore, for our current argument, we do not already presume that a particular Novus Ordo “bishop” legitimately held Catholic office. Instead, we take the argument as a hypothetical: even if such an individual did hold the valid office of Bishop before becoming a heretic, such an individual would not resume office upon renouncing their heresy.

​

There are four ways to demonstrate this argument:

​

i) According to logic and moral principle,

ii) Automatic Excommunication (via heresy) is reserved to the Holy See or Power of an Ordinary,

iii) It is supported by Church documents, and Councils

iv) It is supported by Church theologians.

​

___

​

i) Upon repentance, heretics do not resume office according to logic and moral principle.

​

According to logic and moral principle, a heretical cleric, once repentant, ought not be entrusted with the formation, guidance, and general shepherding of souls. This is because, by their former public heresy, they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy with the care of souls, having previously been such a grave danger to them.

​

Of course, there is a universe of difference between stating that a repentant individual is untrustworthy, and stating that they are beyond the reach of divine mercy. We do not here argue, in any way, that such individuals cannot reconcile their own souls with God. Instead, the argument is that, even if they do repent and reconcile their souls with God in the internal forum (which is what every Catholic hopes for all heretics), that does not automatically prove that they can be trusted in the external forum. In fact, we would assume that the more powerful and true a heretic’s repentance may be, the more likely they would be to recognise this principle.

​

This can be clarified with a few comparisons…

​

Perhaps there is a care-worker given the charge of children, yet they use their trusted position to corrupt and abuse children (and thus, plunge themselves into profound mortal sin). God’s infinite grace can reach such a person, so we all know that they may repent of these sins and be transformed. Nonetheless, even if such a transformation were sincere, and even if it seemed evident to all around this person, it would be clear to all that this person should never be entrusted with the care of children again. Indeed, they ought to go to prison or undergo some other severe punishment. If they have any remaining time and energy to serve God, their efforts should clearly be placed elsewhere…

​

Likewise for a doctor: if a doctor has long used their position of trust to corrupt and harm their patients, it is clear that once this is discovered, this doctor should never be entrusted with such care again, even if they are sincerely repentant for the evil they have done.

​

Thus, given that this moral principle is so clear for the care of innocents and the health of bodies, it is clearly applicable to the care of souls, which clerical heretics pose such a grave danger to.

​

Whether locally or globally, the Novus Ordo religion and its clerics have done untold harm to souls.

​

ii) Upon repentance, heretics do not resume office because they are excommunicated, and excommunication is reserved to the Holy See or Power of an Ordinary.

​

This is an argument that we have already demonstrated elsewhere in our Additional Arguments.3

 

In summary, Canon 2314 of the Code of Canon Law states that:

​

Ҥ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:

1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;”4

​

And that…

​

§ 2. Absolution from the excommunication mentioned in § 1... is specially reserved to the Apostolic See… [or recovery by power of an Ordinary]”5

​

Therefore, heretics are automatically excommunicated, and:

​

“Clerics who have incurred excommunication are moreover forbidden… to receive dignities, offices, benefices, pensions and orders”6

​

Therefore, it is clear that, having been automatically excommunicated, such heretical clerics are forbidden from receiving offices and that this excommunication can only be lifted by the pope or an Ordinary. Therefore, repentance does not restore a heretic to office according to Canon Law.

​

It is also worth emphasising again that, due to our current situation, we have no pope and no appointed Ordinaries. Therefore, no excommunications can be lifted either by the pope himself or an Ordinary superior.

​

iii) Upon repentance, heretics do not resume office because this principle is expressed in Church documents and Councils.

​

It is also for this reason that we can conclude that the principle is not merely penal. That is to say, the principle that heretics are not restored to office upon repentance is not merely a penalty applied by the Church; instead, it is a consequence that follows from the very nature of heresy, much like the consequence of tacit resignation, which is not a penalty (strictly speaking), but nonetheless separates the heretic from their office ipso facto, or by the very fact.

​

Likewise, we can conclude that heretics are not restored to office upon repentance not as a result of an applied penalty but due to the nature of heresy. The reason that we can conclude this is because the principle has been expressed by the Church throughout the ages; and being perpetual (even eternal), the principle has the character of something permanent, not of a merely transient penalty suited to a particular instance in time. This brings us to our discussion of the most contentious Church document on this issue: the Papal Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, written by Pope Paul IV in 1559:

​

Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:

​

The reason why this Bull is contentious, and its significance is argued against by the Thesis advocates, is because it is a penal Bull, which some claim to be dogmatic. The Thesis advocates argue that because it is penal and not dogmatic, the kinds of effects it lists must be merely penal, only suited for a particular time, and are no longer relevant (because the Bull is no longer in force).7

​

However, this presentation of the Bull is misleading. The fact is that it is penal does not mean it is merely penal. Instead, it is a penal Bull which contains reflections of Divine law.

​

After all, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio deals with all consequences for heretics and all deviants from the faith, including the penalties which are subject to change. However, even if some (or even most) of these consequences are penalities subject to change, it does not follow that all are. Some may also be truly perpetual. We here posit that the principle: repentant heretics do not return to office is one such perpetual consequence reflected in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:

​

“(ii) that, moreover, [heretics] shall be unfit and incapable in respect of these things and that they shall be held to be backsliders and subverted in every way, just as if they had previously abjured heresy of this kind in public trial; that they shall never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated or rehabilitated to their former status or Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal and Primatial Churches, or the Cardinalate, or other honour, any other dignity...

​

...6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into some heresy:

​

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

​

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

​

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

​

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

​

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

​

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”8

​

These statements of Pope Paul IV have been repeated elsewhere, even in earlier documents, as we will see...

​

The Meaning of Deposition & Degradation

​

Before we proceed, we must review the definition of the terms “Deposition” and “Degradation”, which are as follows:

Deposition:

​

“This penalty is more severe than privation of office. It includes suspension, privation of all offices and benefices which the cleric may have, and disqualification for any future office or benefice.”9

​

Degradation:

​

“This is the severest of all vindictive penalties. It adds to deposition the perpetual privation of the clerical garb, and of clerical privileges. In other words the cleric is reduced to the lay state, as the term implies…”10

​

Therefore, whenever we read of “deposition” or “degradation” as applied to clerics, it means the perpetual inability to resume office; i.e. the principle being argued for – a deposed or degraded cleric cannot resume office.

​

The Fourth Lateran Council

​

Centuries before Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, the Fourth Lateran Council expressed similar consequences for heretics:

​

“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders.”11

​

Therefore, we see that the council states that degradation is to be the first penalty that the Church should apply to heretical clerics.

​

The Council of Ephesus

​

A millennium before Pope Paul IV, The Council of Ephesus dealt with the Nestorian heresy, and thus spoke of the followers of Nestorius:

​

“If any clerics should apostatise and in private or in public dare to hold the views of Nestorius or Celestius, it is thought right that such should stand deposed by the holy synod.”12

​

...if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy...”13

​

Therefore, we see this principle applied by the Church when it dealt with early heresies, once again enforcing the idea that heretics are blocked from office, and that this has always been taught by the Church.

​

Pope Nicholas III

​

Later than Ephesus and the Fourth Lateran Council, but prior to the time of Pope Paul IV, pope Nicholas III published a constitution with similar statements against heretics:

​

“Let your whole community know that we excommunicate and anathematize all heretics: the Cathars, the Patarenes, the Poor of Lyon, the Passaginians, the Josephites, the Arnoldists, the Speronists, and others by whatever names they may be called, having indeed different faces, but tails bound together, because they agree in the same vanity.

§ 1. Truly, those condemned by the Church shall be left to secular judgment, to be punished with the due punishment; clerics first being degraded from their orders.
§ 2. But if any of the aforesaid, after they have been detected, should wish to return to do worthy penance, let them be thrust into perpetual prison.”14

​

Therefore, we once again see that clerics are given specific mention as to be degraded. Also, “perpetual prison” is regarded as “worthy penance” for such heretics. This once again emphasises the Church’s stance on the severity of heresy.

​

In sum, it is clear that the principle: repentant heretics do not reclaim office has been repeatedly taught by the Church’s Magisterium, and that it has been repeatedly applied throughout history.

​

Note: we are aware that some historical cases are sometimes invoked in an attempt to refute the principle, but these cases will be dealt with elsewhere.15

​

iv) Upon repentance, heretics do not resume office because this is supported by theologians

​

In particular, this claim is clarified by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, who gives this claim the support of multiple other Saints:

​

“Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: “We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right”; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church.”16

​

“[I]t is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence.”17

​

Therefore, we see clearly that St. Bellarmine concludes with the support of Holy Fathers that heretics must return to the Church as laymen.

​

Now, one may argue that this is after two warnings, as is here mentioned. However, we have already demonstrated elsewhere that a warning is not strictly necessary because the purpose of a warning is to establish knowing pertinacity18 or, as St. Bellarmine states, to show that one is “manifestly obstinate”, as theologian Cardinal John de Lugo states on the matter of heresy:

​

“...in the external forum, a previous admonition and reprimand is not always required to punish someone as heretical and pertinacious; nor is such requirement always admitted in the practice of the Holy Office. For if it can be ascertained in some other way, given the defendant’s qualities, obvious doctrinal knowledge and other circumstances, that he could not be unaware that his doctrine was opposed to the Church’s, by this very fact he will be considered a heretic… The reason for this is clear, for external admonition can only serve to make the person in error become aware of the opposition existing between his error and the doctrine of the Church. If he knows the subject much more through books and conciliar definitions than he could through the words of his admonisher, there is no reason to require another admonition for him to become pertinacious against the Church.”19

​

One may then claim that warnings are required under Canon 2314:

​

§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic…

2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of office… [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;

3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.20

​

Therefore, we see two mentions of warnings. However, these warnings only apply when the heresy is not publicly manifest by a public defection from the Catholic faith. This is made explicit in Canon 2314 (1:3) which refers to Canon 188.4 (Any office becomes vacant… if a cleric…Publicly defects from the Catholic faith),21 and which also clearly states that public adherents to a non-Catholic sect are by that fact infamous – i.e. automatically infamous. Therefore, we should consider the canonical meaning of “infamy” (along with another term: “irregular”):

​

“Those who have been branded with infamy by the law are irregular.”22

​

And here is the definition of irregularity:

​

“An impediment introduced by ecclesiastical law preventing one from entering the clerical state, or from the exercise of any orders.”23

​

Therefore, according to Canon 2314 (1:3), a public adherent to a non-Catholic sect is by that fact infamous, therefore irregular, and therefore prevented from becoming a cleric. This happens without the need for a warning because the consequence is automatic.24

​

___

​

In conclusion we can clearly see that repentant heretics do not reclaim office. This is not merely a penal rule, but a consistent principle; a consequence of heresy, as repeatedly argued for and applied throughout the millennia of Church history, as supported by Councils, Popes, Historical Practice, Theologians and Canon Law.

​

Therefore, we do not hold that the Novus Ordo clergy have occupied Catholic offices, but even if they did hold such offices, they would be automatically removed from such offices as a result of their heresy and would not be able to simply re-occupy such offices, even if they made a full conversion back to the Catholic faith.

​

1 Core Argument: Section 4: On the Question of Heresy

2 Additional Argument: Canon 2314, Excommunication and Non-Catholic Sects

3 Additional Argument: Canon 2314, Excommunication, and non-Catholic Sects

4 Code of Canon Law, 1917 Edition

5 Ibid.

6 Rev. Matthew Ramstein, Manual of Canon Law, 1947, pp.686-687 (emphasis added), this is also made explicit in Canon 2265: Code of Canon Law, 1917

7 thethesis.us (2025) Chapter XIII: On the Canonical Crime of Heresy, 4th Article, n.32-33, & 5th Article, n.34

8 Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559 (emphasis added)

9 Rev. Matthew Ramstein, Manual of Canon Law, 1947, p.692

10 Ibid, 692-693 (emphasis added)

11 The Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, Constitutions: n.3 (emphasis added)

12 The Council of Ephesus, 431, Synodical Letter about the Expulsion of the Eastern Bishops (et al.) (emphasis added)

13 Ibid, Definition of the Faith at Nicaea (6th Session) (emphasis added)

14 Pope Nicholas III, Noverit Universitas (1280) (emphasis added) in: Bullarum Diplomatum et Privilegiorum Santorum Romanorum Pontificum : Taurinensis Editio, Vol IV,Augustae Taurinorum, 1857, p.47

15 Additional Arguments: Additional Historical Refutations

16 St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30 (emphasis added)

17 Ibid (emphasis added)

18 See: Core Argument: 4. On the Question of Heresy

19 Cardinal John de Lugo, Disputationes, disp. XX, sect. V, no. 157-158.

20 Code of Canon Law, 1917 Edition (emphasis added)

21 Ibid. (emphasis added)

22 Timothy Lincoln Bouscaren. Canon Law; A Text and Commentary, under: “Infamy at Law”, 1953, p.875 (emphasis added)

23 New Catholic Dictionary (Vatican Edition), 1929, p.491, see: “Irregularity”

24 We have already explained how the Novus Ordo clergy can be regarded as part of a non-Catholic sect: See: Additional Argument: Canon 2314, Excommunication and Non-Catholic Sects