Salza and Siscoe Misrepresent 17th Century Canonist Fr. Paul Laymann

John Salza and Robert Siscoe thought they found another canonist that refutes sedevacantism. [1] Not only did they place their newfound argument on their website, but they placed it in 3 different places in their heretical book “True or False Pope – Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors.”

German Jesuit priest Fr. Paul Laymann lived in the 16^th  and 17^th centuries and was a professor of philosophy, moral theology, and canon law. He was a highly regarded moralist and canonist in his day.

Salza and Siscoe take the following quotation dealing with the heretical pope question from Fr. Laymann’s book Theologia Moralis, Book 2, Tract 1, Chapter 2, p. 153, published in 1700:

     “But note that, although we affirm that the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might become a heretic … nevertheless, for as long as he is tolerated by the Church, and is publicly recognized as the universal pastor, he is still endowed, in fact, with the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful, as Dominic Barnes notes well (q.1, a. 10, doubt 2, ad. 3) Suarez bk 4, on laws, ch. 7.

     “The reason is: because it is conducive to the governing of the Church, even as, in any other well-constituted commonwealth, that the acts of a public magistrate are in force as long as he remains in office and is publicly tolerated.” [1] (Translation given by Salza & Siscoe)

Salza and Siscoe then boast how “Fr. Laymann’s explanation reflects the constant teaching and practice of the Catholic Church.”

There is no historic practice of the Church recognizing heretical popes. That’s silly. Fr. Laymann himself tells us how his explanation is the more probable opinion. Salza and Siscoe also say they anticipate our sedevacantist response to be us saying “canonists and theologians are not infallible.”

I have news for them, fallible opinions from canonists and theologians is not the issue concerning Fr. Laymann. It’s about presenting a historical canonist and theologian honestly and correctly, something Salza and Siscoe don’t do at all with anyone. They place an ellipsis between “heretic” and “nevertheless” which skips over this absolutely crucial part of Fr. Laymann’s teaching:

     “and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church (as the Church is the congregation of the faithful, thus any heretics, by the very fact that they reject the true faith of Christ, are neither faithful, nor true Christians, according to St. Augustine, Enchridion chap. 5).” See footnote [2] for the Latin text.

Salza and Siscoe provided a snapshot of the page from Laymann’s writing for reference, so why did they leave out this crucial part? 

I suspect they didn’t understand how Fr. Layman could say “the Supreme Pontiff, as a private person, might become a heretic and therefore cease to be a true member of the Church,” and then explain how a non-member of the Church could still be pope “endowed, in fact, with the pontifical power, in such a way that all his decrees have no less force and authority than they would if he were a truly faithful.” Therefore, they just decided to cut out those sections to deceptively make Fr. Laymann appear to be on their side and against sedevacantism. 

Salza and Siscoe also omitted another crucial citation at the very end of the page, which explains Fr. Laymann’s full teaching on the matter.

The citation reads:

     “as long as he is left in such an office, and is publicly tolerated, according to the law of Barbarius, of the office of Praetor.”

The law of Barbarius is the example from Roman history that is cited as the first example of supplied jurisdiction in common error, which later became a matter of law. Barbarius was a runaway slave and thus ineligible for the office of Praetor, but he attained this office in Rome and held it for a number of years. After his ineligibility was discovered, his jurisdictional acts were allowed to stand as valid.

Laymann’s reference to the law of Barbarius implies that if a pope were to become a heretic, his acts of jurisdiction would be valid by supplied jurisdiction because of common error that the non-Catholic heretic is pope when in fact, he is not. [3]

Can. 209 of the 1917 Code of Law provides for the common good and public security by reaffirming the well-known principle that the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction when there’s common error to an apparent title to the office one exercises. This means supplied jurisdiction is given by the Church, because the person claiming the title of an office doesn’t actually possess the office with ordinary jurisdiction. It’s only an apparent title.

Perhaps, Salza and Siscoe can explain their omissions of these two important parts if I’m incorrect for suggesting ignorance and dishonesty. 

Not only is Fr. Laymann against Salza and Siscoe on this point, he’s also against them on the universal acceptance argument, which they claim proves Francis is truly pope. [4] Since Fr. Laymann is using the common error explanation for a pope who might become a heretic, the implication is the universal acceptance of the Church is mistaken, because the common error of the Church would be recogizing an imposter as pope. 

Fr. Laymann also destroys the recognize and resist position. In case of common error, a non-Catholic heretic acting as pope issues authoritative decrees, which must be accepted. Salza and Siscoe argue against Fr. Laymann that the decrees of their believed-to-be pope Francis are invalid, not authoritative, and are to be rejected.

Even “Abp.” Vigano wrote in his Open Letter to Confused Priests: “we can nevertheless recognize a Pope as a heretic, and as such refuse, on a case-by-case basis, to show him the obedience to which he would otherwise be entitled.” These pseudo-traditionalists don’t even accept authoritative decress from those they accept as true popes, a far cry from Fr. Laymann’s teaching and the real constant teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. 

Once again, Salza and Siscoe have twisted another theologian and canonist to mean exactly opposite to his teaching. By providing that snapshot of Fr. Laymann’s teaching, they have inadvertently provided more evidence to the truth of sedevacantism and the condemnation of several of their own positions. For that, I thank them. 

 

Footnotes:

[1] True or False Pope: A RENOWNED 17TH CENTURY CANONIST REFUTES SEDEVACANTISM

[2] Reverendi Patris Pauli Laymanni … Theologia Moralis: In Quinque Libros 

 

[3] Miaskiewicz discusses Barbarius on pp. 32-40

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Miaskiewicz–Canon%20209.pdf

[4] The Universal Acceptance Argument Revisited