A heretical Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter knute
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

knute

Guest
I have always taken comfort in the doctrine of papal infallibility, the idea that a pope is protected by Christ from teaching heresy on matters of faith and morals. However, Protestants always assert that Pope Honorius was condemned by an Ecumenical Council. In Pope Fiction, Pat Madrid states that Pope Honorius did NOT, in fact, teach heresy but merely failed to act strongly and condemn heresy, that he simply allowed the Monothelitist Sergius’s heterodox teaching to coexist with orthodox. This seems like splitting hairs a bit. I’m not sure I’m as comforted by the doctrine of infallibility if it means that the faithful can be confused as to what’s heretical or not. Isn’t silence on the matter not simply another way of condoning it? Also, St. Robert Bellarmine wrote a lengthy treatise outlining the conditions necessary in the hypothetical situation of a heretical pope. I am confused. Can there be such a thing as a heretical Pope? Please clarify.
 
well, he is only infallable when he is saying that he is being infallable. he can hold heretical views as an individual, but as the pope, he is protected by the HS from teaching infallably in error.
 
Advocating heresy and believing it is different then being lax in dealing with it. I don’t know of any Pope who was a heretic. Some were not nice guys and others were immoral. But I don’t remember any who were actually guilty of heresy.
 
Honorius was indeed a heretic, but this in no way affects Papal Infallibility.

Papal Infallibility is simply the negative protection (negative protection meaning that something can’t occur) against the Pope actively and positively teaching heresy. It does not protect the Pope from being a heretic, or protect people from misunderstanding the Pope and therefore going into heresy. Honorius never positively taught heresy, so Papal Infallibility was not even remotely violated.

Infallibility doesn’t mean you can’t be wrong, it means you can’t actively teach wrong. It also doesn’t mean that you will teach right, either.
 
I guess, as a cradle Catholic, I’m kinda disappointed in the charism of papal infallibility the more I learn about it. First, theologians themselves never seem to agree on what is or is not an infallible teaching. Why is it so cloudy? Second, some have said only a handful of times in history has papal infallibilty been invoked, the last being the Assumption. That doesn’t seem to be enough when one considers the multide of issues life entails. I guess I’d like a little more assurance. Third, apparently no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra concerning issues like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or women priests. These are the burning issues of our day. Is the failure to speak infallibly an admission that those issues are still up in the air? We are merely given “strong” advice to give “faithful assent”. Well, if the next pope comes out and immediately opens up the prieshood to women, I’m not sure I would have any confidence in why “assent” is needed.
 
40.png
knute:
First, theologians themselves never seem to agree on what is or is not an infallible teaching. Why is it so cloudy?
Click to expand...
I disagree that the definition of papal infallibility is “cloudy.” It has been very clearly defined. If “theologians” would simply refer to the definition proclaimed by Vatican I, then it would be much clearer for them and they would cause less confusion for us.
Vatican I:
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
Code: 
 (a) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 
 (b) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 
 (c) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Click to expand...
40.png
knute:
Second, some have said only a handful of times in history has papal infallibilty been invoked, the last being the Assumption. That doesn’t seem to be enough when one considers the multide of issues life entails. I guess I’d like a little more assurance.
Click to expand...
It is true that this power has only been invoked by a pope a handful of times but I dispute the claim that the last time was the definition of the assumption.
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS:
  1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Click to expand...
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare

he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church

the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

I don’t care how many theologians dispute the infallible nature of that teaching, it is patently clear to me that they are wrong. This is why I do not rely on theologians, but on the teaching authority of the Church. (continued)
 
(continued from post #7)
40.png
knute:
Third, apparently no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra concerning issues like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or women priests. These are the burning issues of our day. Is the failure to speak infallibly an admission that those issues are still up in the air? We are merely given “strong” advice to give “faithful assent”. Well, if the next pope comes out and immediately opens up the prieshood to women, I’m not sure I would have any confidence in why “assent” is needed.
Click to expand...
No pope can “open up” the priesthood to women because that has been infallibly defined. The topic is closed no matter how loudly dissenters may rail against the teaching.

In addition, the definition of papal infallibility only addresses his personal infallibility and does not address the other means in which infallible truth is passed on to us. In addition to papal declarations, there are the canons and decrees of ecumenical councils and also the constant unchanging teaching of the Church. Therefore, the issues of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or women priests are not still up in the air. The Church has always - repeat always - taught against all of these issues and has never wavered. Some think that contraception and abortion are only current issues but they are very wrong; both pre-date Christianity and the earlies post-biblical Christian writing we have (the Didache) condemns both abortion and contraception.

The fact that there are dissenters who try to make the rest of us believe that these issues are still open for discussion is only proof of our sinful nature and how badly some people rebel against the teachings of God. Take comfort. The fact that a pope can be heretical outside of ex cathedra declarations is no reason to be concerned. Pope Honorius is a perfect example of this.
 
40.png
knute:
I guess, as a cradle Catholic, I’m kinda disappointed in the charism of papal infallibility the more I learn about it. First, theologians themselves never seem to agree on what is or is not an infallible teaching. Why is it so cloudy? Second, some have said only a handful of times in history has papal infallibilty been invoked, the last being the Assumption. That doesn’t seem to be enough when one considers the multide of issues life entails. I guess I’d like a little more assurance. Third, apparently no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra concerning issues like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or women priests. These are the burning issues of our day. Is the failure to speak infallibly an admission that those issues are still up in the air? We are merely given “strong” advice to give “faithful assent”. Well, if the next pope comes out and immediately opens up the prieshood to women, I’m not sure I would have any confidence in why “assent” is needed.
Click to expand...
You seem to forget the the CHURCH itself is Infallible. It is not nessesary for the Pope to always define what is and what is not Dogma. For 2000 years the Church has condemed Abortion, Contraception and Homosexuality. These are Infallible Teachings contained within the Deposit of Faith. As to the Ordination of Woman, The Church has NO AUTHORITY to Ordain Women.
 
40.png
metal1633:
You seem to forget the the CHURCH itself is Infallible. It is not nessesary for the Pope to always define what is and what is not Dogma. For 2000 years the Church has condemed Abortion, Contraception and Homosexuality. These are Infallible Teachings contained within the Deposit of Faith. As to the Ordination of Woman, The Church has NO AUTHORITY to Ordain Women.
Click to expand...
By Church, I assume you are referring to the hierarchy. Because if you define it as the people of God, those “called out”, etc. many would say the Church is calling for women priests, homosexual marriage, etc. My question is simply: Isn’t the slaughter of millions of aborted children as important as defining that Catholics must believe that the blessed Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? Why has not the Pope spoken unequivicantly, using the proscribed formula for defining abortion, homosexuality, and contraception infallibly?
 
He has. You can read it in his letter The Gospel of Life. Sometimes he doesn’t need to as it has already been stated infallibly. It doesn’t matter if 51% of catholics think abortion is good. It still isn’t by divine law. Those who deny papal infallibility invariably insist on their own.
 
40.png
knute:
By Church, I assume you are referring to the hierarchy. Because if you define it as the people of God, those “called out”, etc. many would say the Church is calling for women priests, homosexual marriage, etc. My question is simply: Isn’t the slaughter of millions of aborted children as important as defining that Catholics must believe that the blessed Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? Why has not the Pope spoken unequivicantly, using the proscribed formula for defining abortion, homosexuality, and contraception infallibly?
Click to expand...
By “The Church” I mean the entire body of Christians, living and dead, considered as an organization.

Catholic Tradition, as attested by a dozen writers from the first-century author of the Didache, to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion. This IS Infallible Teaching. It is even writtten in the The Apostolic Constitutions which are Dogmatic documents. As such they are Infallible Teaching. What more do you want? It is ALREADY a Law of the Church. This goes for homosexuality and contraception as well.
 
40.png
metal1633:
By “The Church” I mean the entire body of Christians, living and dead, considered as an organization.
Click to expand...
By defining the Church as broadly as “the entire body of Christians” one could say then, that if an increasing majority of our Catholic society thinks gay marriage is o.k., then their decision is infallible. But Cardinal Avery Dulles states that “Vatican I firmly rejected one condition…as necessary for infallibility, namely, the consent of the whole Church” (Infallibility, pp. 79-80). By then qualifying your definition of the Church with “considered as an organization” it would seem that again, you are really referring to the hierarchy’s decisions. So, the Pope or Ecumenical Council must solenmly declare contraception/homsexuality as emfatically evil as everyone seem to agree that Pius XII declared the Assumption as infallibly true. To not do so implies hesitancy in my opinion and I wonder why not use it?
 
40.png
knute:
By defining the Church as broadly as “the entire body of Christians” one could say then, that if an increasing majority of our Catholic society thinks gay marriage is o.k., then their decision is infallible. But Cardinal Avery Dulles states that “Vatican I firmly rejected one condition…as necessary for infallibility, namely, the consent of the whole Church” (Infallibility, pp. 79-80).
Click to expand...
You are mixing the issue. If there is ever an issue on which the whole Church agrees, then it is presumed to be an infallible teaching based on the idea of the “sense of the faithful.” However, when we are talking about majorities instead of unanimity, the rule does not apply. Catholicism is not a democracy.

Additionally, you must remember that doctrines and dogmas are, by definition, unchangeable. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if, due to some heresy, 99.99999999…% of all Catholics decide that homosexual marriage is okay. That situation would not “change” the teaching because it is unchangeable. You may think that I’m begging the question as to “what if 100% of all Catholics decide that homosexual marriage is okay?” If that should happen, drop to you knees because the Second Coming has arrived!!! 😃

Seriously, Jesus himself promised that the gates of hell would never prevail over the Church. This does not mean that the Church will constantly be gathered around the camp fire singing Kumbya. We are at war with Satan. Even though he will never prevail over the Church, he can do so over her members; even in significant numbers. Our primary weapon in this war is prayer. A pope can never be heretical when teaching “ex cathedra” but we need to constantly pray for him for all of the rest of his time in the papacy.

It is merely your opinion that such definitions are needed and to not give them implies heresy. The simple fact of the matter is that it is a small minority in the Church that rejects the teachings you bring up. Yes, they are very vocal but they don’t represent any real danger to the faithful. Infallible declarations are only given in times of need. This has always been the case. Do you think that Pius XII did not hesitate before defining the dogma of the Assumption? He definitely did. He even polled the other bishops about the advisability of making the declaration. As has been pointed out, all of the issues you list are already part of the constant and unchangeable teaching of the Church. Infallible declarations are not necessary, not even at this time, to make it so or to assure the faithful of what the teaching is. Those very few in the Church who are rejecting these teachings wouldn’t listen to an infallible declaration any more than they would listen to the authoritative teaching of the bishops. Just look at their reaction to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis!
 
40.png
knute:
I guess, as a cradle Catholic, I’m kinda disappointed in the charism of papal infallibility the more I learn about it. First, theologians themselves never seem to agree on what is or is not an infallible teaching. Why is it so cloudy? Second, some have said only a handful of times in history has papal infallibilty been invoked, the last being the Assumption. That doesn’t seem to be enough when one considers the multide of issues life entails. I guess I’d like a little more assurance. Third, apparently no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra concerning issues like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or women priests. These are the burning issues of our day. Is the failure to speak infallibly an admission that those issues are still up in the air? We are merely given “strong” advice to give “faithful assent”. Well, if the next pope comes out and immediately opens up the prieshood to women, I’m not sure I would have any confidence in why “assent” is needed.
Click to expand...
No pope would have to speak excathdra on these issues as they are part of the Code of Canon Law. They have already been defined, no further proclamation is necessary. Additionally, JPII has spoken on numerous occations concerning all of your issues.
 
The doctrine of infallibility has been clearly defined as already stated.
The issues of contraception, female priests, gay marriage have indeed been infallibly defined.
It is the dissenters who cloud the issue and attempt to distort the doctrine of infallibility.
It is necessary for them to do this so they can continue to dissent with a seemingly clear conscience.
But all they’ve done is spread confusion and division.
Where there is confusion and division there is the evil one.
 
A heretical pope: John XXII (1316-1334)

In the last years of his life, John (a brilliant canon lawyer, but no theologian) promulgated a heretical doctrine, usually referred to simply as the Beatific Vision. Briefly, he proclaimed that the blessed will not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment. If this were true, then the intercession of saints would be impossible.

His successor, Benedict XII, was obliged to do some fancy footwork to squelch this.

Naprous
 
As to the claim that JPII invoked papal infallibility in his condemnation of women’s ordination, there is dispute among theologians because JPII did not, in fact, speak ex cathedra on the matter. In the wake of the initial publication of that document, some argued he had spoken ex cathedra, others that he had not. If you read the whole document, you find that he is simply reaffirming the constant teaching of the Church, thus not invoking his infallibility but telling us that the issue has already been defined. When theologians sent an official request to Cardinal Ratzinger to clarify whether the pope had spoken ex cathedra, the answer was negative. The “doctrine” was to be held infallibly, but not on the ex cathedra authority of JPII rather the infallibility of the Church Universal. This is what led to the real controversy, because dissenters began shouting that a failure to ordain women does not constitute a teaching on the matter. They argue not against an infallible teaching of JPII but against his claim that the Church has already spoken on the issue.
 
Andreas Hofer:
As to the claim that JPII invoked papal infallibility in his condemnation of women’s ordination, there is dispute among theologians because JPII did not, in fact, speak ex cathedra on the matter. In the wake of the initial publication of that document, some argued he had spoken ex cathedra, others that he had not. If you read the whole document, you find that he is simply reaffirming the constant teaching of the Church, thus not invoking his infallibility but telling us that the issue has already been defined.
Click to expand...
Actually, theologians still debate whether or not the teaching was infallibly given. If you read the document in light of the requirements defined at Vatican I, especially if you compare it with other declarations accepted as infallible, you might come to a very different conclusions. This is currently being discussed in the following thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=9586
Andreas Hofer:
When theologians sent an official request to Cardinal Ratzinger to clarify whether the pope had spoken ex cathedra, the answer was negative.
Click to expand...
Correction, the theologians sent a request to Cardinal Ratzinger to clarify whether the teaching was part of the deposit of the faith. Cardinal Ratzinger forwarded the question to the pope who answered that it is. Cardinal Ratzinger then sent the pope’s reply along with his own letter of explanation on the implications of the teaching in light of the many questions being asked. In that last letter, he stated that it was not an infallible teaching but, as the debate in the other thread asks, is that the final word on the matter? (Not on the matter of the teaching regarding ordiation, but on the matter of whether or not Ordinatio Sacerdotalis contained an infallible declaration.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top