Cadaver Synod

[Awake]

In 897, Pope Stephen VII dug up the corpse of Pope Formosus and then put him/it on trial accusing him of violating church canon and decreed all of his ordinations invalid. Later in the early 900s, Pope Sergius III reversed this decision and decreed all of the ordinations were valid.

Doesn’t a topic such as the validity of ordination fall under the “faith and morals” category, since it pertains to the Sacrament of Holy Orders? If so, which Pope was actually infallible?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In 897, Pope Stephen VII dug up the corpse of Pope Formosus and then put him/it on trial accusing him of violating church canon and decreed all of his ordinations invalid. Later in the early 900s, Pope Sergius III reversed this decision and decreed all of the ordinations were valid.

Doesn’t a topic such as the validity of ordination fall under the “faith and morals” category, since it pertains to the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

Infallibility is not involved - whether X is validly ordained, is not a matter that involves it. Ordinations can be annulled.​

Whether X is legitimate Pope is a question of dogmatic fact - infallibility is not involved: that X is legitimate Pope, would never be definable. Ordinations by Popes are like those of any other bishop: they are valid or invalid or doubtful.

If so, which Pope was actually infallible?

Infallibility is not a permanent disposition - IOW, it is not a habit. Moral habits are what virtues & vices are: justice, patience, meekness; or things like quarrelsomeness, deceitfulness, pride. They are all habitual, & are all habits, even when not being exercised. Infallibility, by contrast, is not a habit - it is not a permanent disposition of the soul, but an occasional gift. It’s similar to inspiration, though not quite the same: inspiration is positive, infallibility is negative (& less excellent: Popes cannot produce new revelation).​

Does that help ?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Doesn’t a topic such as the validity of ordination fall under the “faith and morals” category, since it pertains to the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

It is difficult to see how it would. There was no question about the doctrine of Holy Orders itself - only whether Formosus had validly received it.

When the Church defined Papal infallibility at Vatican I, She specifically said (as one of the conditions) that the Pontiff must be speaking about a “*doctrine *concerning faith or morals” - not just “any matter that might touch on faith and morals.”

A pope may rule (perhaps incorrectly) that a particular individual did not validly receive Orders, but this opinion does not rise to a doctrine concerning the Sacrament itself, and as such, this opinion is not protected by the charism of infallibility.