101 alleged heresies of John Paul II

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Paul Folbrecht,
I was going to be good and stay off the thread, but have to respond to your post. This is about heresy, not immorality, not about whether a pope murdered someone or had a mistress. I was raised pre-Vatican II and remember it quite well, Baltimore Catechism and all. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether any of us as individuals agree or disagree with any pope; it’s simply incumbant on us to follow him, as I said previously, out of obedience to Christ.

I agree with that. Completely. As I already pointed out, one of this hugest errors (sins) of modernism is the denial of papal authority. We’ve seen plenty of that in the last 40 years.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Instead, God does not permit any Pope to fall into any heresy. A Pope can sin, but he cannot commit the sin of heresy.

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic at a Church council, and John XXII publicly taught heresy on a number of occaisions before renouncing the error on his death bed.

It is extremely rare for a Pope to deviate from the faith, but it is not impossible. If it was, Pope Paul IV would not have written the following encyclical. And, it should also be pointed out, that if a Pope falls into error, the laity in no way have an obligation to follow him in his error. Just the contrary: they have the duty to contradict him.

Pope Paul VI: 1. "In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff*, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling" Cum ex Apostolatus officio.

It is certainly rare for a Pope to fall into error, but, according to a Pope himself (Paul VI), it is not impossible.

St. Alphonsus, a doctor of the Church, taught that it is possible for a Pope to all into heresy. If it were to happen, he said the Cardinals could depose him.

 

[pnewton]

It is certainly rare for a Pope to fall into error, but, according to a Pope himself (Paul VI), it is not impossible.

St. Alphonsus, a doctor of the Church, taught that it is possible for a Pope to all into heresy. If it were to happen, he said the Cardinals could depose him.

Error and deviation from the faith is not the same as heresy, just as falling into heresy is not the same as teaching heresy.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Error and deviation from the faith is not the same as heresy, just as falling into heresy is not the same as teaching heresy.

They can be the same as heresy, or they can not be the same as heresy. Heresy is a deviation from the faith, but it is possible to deviate from the faith without becoming a formal heretic. Since there can be a difference between the two, I’ll privide these quotes.

St. Alphonsus, doctor of the Church: There are two instances in which the cardinals may call a council without permission of the Pope. The first is when it is doubtful as to who the rightful Pope should be; and the second, when the Pope should notoriously lapse into heresy. In the first instance, we are guided by the principle ‘a doubtful pope is no pope’; in the second, the council will be called to declare what is already an established fact, for the manifestly heretical pope deprives himself of office without needing the decision of the Church."

St. Francis de Sales: “Now when he (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 …”.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic at a Church council, and John XXII publicly taught heresy on a number of occaisions before renouncing the error on his death bed.

The Council rebuked Pope Honorius (who had died decades ealier) for not doing more to decide a particular question (basically if Christ has two wills or one) of doctrine. But at that point in time the Magisterium had not decided the question, and the Pope did not express even a view that would later (after the decision on doctrine of the Council) be a heresy.
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

It is extremely rare for a Pope to deviate from the faith, but it is not impossible.

If it is possible, how do you know that it is rare? There is no teaching of the Church saying that it is both possible and rare. What sort of principle would make heresy possible but rare? If we say that the Holy Spirit makes heresy rare, why would He not make it impossible?

Some saints (quoted in posts above) thought that perhaps the Pope could fall into heresy. But there are no examples of Pope heretics in about 2000 years. And the example of sedevacantism (which was unknown to most of the Saints quoted on the subject of Popes and heresy) actually teaches us a lesson: that it must be impossible for any Pope to ever fall into heresy, otherwise our position would quickly become that of the sedevacantists, because we would have to judge each and every Pope, Council, and teaching, placing ourselves above the Magisterium.

If you think that a Pope has committed heresy by believing ‘A’, how did you determine that ‘A’ is heresy? Is it because a previous Pope or Council taught ‘not A’? But how do you know that that Pope is not a heretic also? Every Pope’s teaching and every Ecumenical Council’s teaching falls into doubt. We do not even have the exact written decrees of some of the earlier Councils. So how would we judge those Councils (since the sedevacantist position is to judge every Pope and Council)?

Even though some Saints considered the possibility that a Pope might be a heretic, no Saint has ever accused a Pope of being a heretic (not Pope Honorius, and not Pope JP2).

The only reasonable and faithful position left is that the Holy Spirit prevents any Pope from falling into heresy.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

If it is possible, how do you know that it is rare [for a Pope to teach heresy]? There is no teaching of the Church saying that it is both possible and rare. What sort of principle would make heresy possible but rare? If we say that the Holy Spirit makes heresy rare, why would He not make it impossible?

We don’t need a statement from the Church to conclude that it is rare for a Pope to teach something contrary to the faith. We know it is rare because it rarely happens.

If you think that a Pope has committed heresy by believing ‘A’, how did you determine that ‘A’ is heresy? Is it because a previous Pope or Council taught ‘not A’? But how do you know that that Pope is not a heretic also?

The answer to the question is tradition vs. novelty. The Pope does not have the authority to make up new doctrines. His job is to guard the faith and define dogmas when necessary. But the dogmas defined by the Popes are not new doctrines. They are teachings that have always been held, but not definitively settled. When points of doctrine that have always been held are defined, they become dogmas. At this point, every Catholic, including future Bishops and Popes, are bound to accept them.

Thus, the way you would know if a Bishop or Pope fell into heresy is if they taught the contrary of a dogma that has been taught, at least implicitly, from the beginning, and definitively settled.

So, for example, if a Pope denied Purgatory, or hell, or that there are seven sacraments, or that Jesus is God, or any of the other dogmas of the faith, that Pope would be a heretic.

The only reasonable and faithful position left is that the Holy Spirit prevents any Pope from falling into heresy.

Do you have a dogmatic teaching to back that up, or is that merely your opinion?

And did the Holy Ghost also prevent Pope John XXII from publicly teaching that the souls of the faithful departed would not possess the beatific vision until after the final judgment? If not, why not?

 

[pnewton]

Thus, the way you would know if a Bishop or Pope fell into heresy is if they taught the contrary of a dogma that has been taught, at least implicitly, from the beginning, and definitively settled.

So, for example, if a Pope denied Purgatory, or hell, or that there are seven sacraments, or that Jesus is God, or any of the other dogmas of the faith, that Pope would be a heretic.

You give examples that are rather clear-cut. Unfortunately all the controversy in the last half a century has been much less clear than the deity of Christ. When dealing with issues like this list suggest, the argument of what is contrary to dogma and what is not is nothing but a circular, begging the question argument.

We can easily get to the point we we outdo Protestant sola scriptura and descend into a type sola-tradition, where every Catholic determines for himself among the myriad of Church councils, papal encyclicals, and doctors of the Church, what the Church teaches. Knowing the faith better is a very good thing, but we must remember the lesson of Protestantism and the unlikelyhood we will all agree on private interpretation of the vast wealth of tradition.

 

[rjs1]

I’d have to say that doesn’t add up to me.

Sedes deny that the current Pope is our Pope. Protestants deny that the very office of the papacy exists. That’s far broader. To do so, they have to egregiously torture or ignore the words of Christ to Peter, and the entire history of the early Church for sure. There’s a lot more denial, and a lot more error. Period.

…

The fact is they’re our separated brothers who are definitely less separated than Protestants.

A Protestant foolishly fails to recognise the reality of the office of the Pope as instituted by Our Lord.

A sedevacantist is worse. They accept that Our Lord instituted the office of the Papacy, then they throw Our Blessed Lord’s promises back at Him and refuse to accept that God will give us a Pope until the end of time.

Sedevacantists, in rejecting the Pope, have performed a Henry VIII. They have decided that they know better than the Pope, so they have effectively made themselves pope.

I Have far more respect for a Protestant than I do for a sedevacantist.

 

[AlanF]

A Protestant foolishly fails to recognise the reality of the office of the Pope as instituted by Our Lord.

A sedevacantist is worse. They accept that Our Lord instituted the office of the Papacy, then they throw Our Blessed Lord’s promises back at Him and refuse to accept that God will give us a Pope until the end of time.

Sedevacantists, in rejecting the Pope, have performed a Henry VIII. They have decided that they know better than the Pope, so they have effectively made themselves pope.

I Have far more respect for a Protestant than I do for a sedevacantist.

I think they’re as bad as each other, they both prevert texts, whether they be Sacred Scripture or Curch documents, to suit their own positions. They both reject the Papacy and the Church as heresy.

 

[Genesis315]

And did the Holy Ghost also prevent Pope John XXII from publicly teaching that the souls of the faithful departed would not possess the beatific vision until after the final judgment? If not, why not?

This was also held by St. Bernard among others. As far as I know, the truth was still being investigated and was not solemnly defined until his successor, Benedict XII, did so. Calling John XXII a heretic is like calling St. Thomas a heretic for questioning the IC. St. Francis de Sales explains:

When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilst he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extrazagantes which begins Benedictus Deus.

The Holy Spirit leads the Church, He doesn’t carry it. Diligent investigation, consulting with other theologians, and bishops, is all part of the process before solemn definitions.

Furthermore, heresy requires a certain obstinance. There’s a difference between being wrong and being a heretic.

Anyway, were there any sedevacantists at the time of Honorius (whose orthodoxy was defended by John IV), Liberius (who’s orthodoxy was defended by St. Anastasius I), or John XXII?

Has any Pope every been legitimately declared deposed for heresy by a Council of bishops not to mention just a few lay people and priests with dubious orders?

 

[Genesis315]

I think they’re as bad as each other, they both prevert texts, whether they be Sacred Scripture or Curch documents, to suit their own positions. They both reject the Papacy and the Church as heresy.

This is of course why we have a living Teaching Authority–human beings, not just texts. Private interpretation and Sola Denzinger is as problematic as sola Scriptura.

 

[ncjohn]

… Sola Denzinger …

Might have produced the biggest chuckle I’ve gotten here this year, though it is a sad reality.

At least we’re not currently getting treated to every quote come from The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

 

[Genesis315]

At least we’re not currently getting treated to every quote come from The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

Very true. I’ve read parts of this book. I also have read in-full accounts from Marcel Lefebrve, Jospeh Ratzinger, and Fulton Sheen. Not everyone has the same interpretation of events and motives, let’s put it that way.

But even if all sorts of nefarious things happened at the Council, this really wouldn’t be new. St. Gregory Nazienzen said Councils places only of “wrangling and ambition” and St. Basil was scandalized by the “shocking disorder and confusion” of the conciliar disputes.

I just got done reading St. Anthony Mary Claret’s autobiography. He participated at Vatican I. He was so scandalized by the various blasphemies he heard and the fact that many bishops there were expressing hope the Council would result in material gain for themselves that he had a stroke!