Can a heretic be pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rocko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rocko

Guest
This is quite the complicated subject, with two very opposing sides. My uncle believes the Chair of Peter is vacant and the last valid pope was Pope Pius XII. He says that every pope since then has been a heretic and therefore cannot be pope.

I’ve been researching the topic for a while but am now a bit stuck and would like some advice. Here is the train of logic I’m following now:

From the article “White Smoke, Valid Pope” (catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp) I learned about Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in which he states that excommunication would not exclude one from actively or passively participating in a papal election.

“Oh great” I thought. There’s some solid evidence to refute his arguments. Wrong. Now he tells me that a heretic cannot even be a cardinal to begin with so he would be automatically excluded from Pope Pius XII’s ruling. He bases this argument on these two passages:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”
Click to expand...
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man
from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Click to expand...
So now we see that a heretic cannot be a member of the Body of Christ, sure, but it doesn’t say anything about being excluded from papal eligibility. He then cites several Doctors of the Church who say exactly that - heretics cannot be pope, ipso facto. And of course I refute by saying those are not infallible statements made ex cathedra. Then he shows me this:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is
absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”
Click to expand...
I dunno, that seems like a pretty solid argument there. I guess my only way to refute this is to somehow show that it wasn’t made ex cathedra - which is something I have no clue how to do. I understand that an infallible statement must be solemnly defined and pertaining to faith and morals. How do you know if something is “solemnly defined” or not?

And am I even going about this the right way? I mean, should I really be trying to prove that a heretic can be pope, or instead should I be trying to prove that our recent popes are/were not heretics?

Thanks in advance!
 
Eugh. Icky question. I mean, even if we concede that a known heretic could not become Pope, what’s to stop him from becoming a heretic after becoming Pope? Does Papal infallibility mean that the Holy Spirit will prevent such a thing from happening? Or would it fall upon the Magisterium to declare the sitting pope an apostate and the seat vacant?

Either way, the authority to make that call would clearly fall on the Universal Magisterium (read: “bishops”), not random outraged Catholics from Kansas, so the sedevacantists are dead wrong in any case. If all the bishops of the world one day declare that the Pope is teaching error in his official ex cathedra capacity on an issue of faith and morals, we’ll have serious questions to go over, and those will get knotty. Since that hasn’t happened, though, we are still required to trust our bishops, who–if your uncle didn’t notice–have validated everything recent popes have said for fifty years, beginning with the indisputable authority of an ecumenical council in Vatican II.

I think you should engage the sedevacantists on both the substance of their dissent and the possibility of papal heresy. Either way, you win.
 
The teaching is that a manifest heretic cannot be Pope. Meaning a public heretic that denies a dogma publicly. Meaning he would leave the Church and become a Protestant for example. furthermore, how do we truly know if a Pope is a heretic? We dont know what the Pope holds in private. The teaching is that a manifest heretic cant become Pope. Or a manifest heretic would lose his seat automatically.
 
I believe Honorius was a heretic, but the Holy Spirit prevented him from making his heresy into official Church teaching.
 
The charism of infallibility ensures that the Bishop of Rome is protected by the Holy Spirit from promulgating any moral or theological error as official doctrine, to the Catholic Church. We base this on the promises of Christ to Blessed St. Peter.

Does your uncle believe in papal infallibility?
 
Rocko said:
This is quite the complicated subject, with two very opposing sides. My uncle believes the Chair of Peter is vacant and the last valid pope was Pope Pius XII. He says that every pope since then has been a heretic and therefore cannot be pope.

I’ve been researching the topic for a while but am now a bit stuck and would like some advice. Here is the train of logic I’m following now:

From the article “White Smoke, Valid Pope” (catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp) I learned about Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in which he states that excommunication would not exclude one from actively or passively participating in a papal election.

“Oh great” I thought. There’s some solid evidence to refute his arguments. Wrong. Now he tells me that a heretic cannot even be a cardinal to begin with so he would be automatically excluded from Pope Pius XII’s ruling. He bases this argument on these two passages:

So now we see that a heretic cannot be a member of the Body of Christ, sure, but it doesn’t say anything about being excluded from papal eligibility. He then cites several Doctors of the Church who say exactly that - heretics cannot be pope, ipso facto. And of course I refute by saying those are not infallible statements made ex cathedra. Then he shows me this:

I dunno, that seems like a pretty solid argument there. I guess my only way to refute this is to somehow show that it wasn’t made ex cathedra - which is something I have no clue how to do. I understand that an infallible statement must be solemnly defined and pertaining to faith and morals. How do you know if something is “solemnly defined” or not?

And am I even going about this the right way? I mean, should I really be trying to prove that a heretic can be pope, or instead should I be trying to prove that our recent popes are/were not heretics?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
The doctrine has to do with teaching error to the Church.

no pope has ever taught the Church, an article of faith or morals, that was later found to be false. That doesn’t mean a pope can’t have an erroneous view. The HS protects the Church from such an erroneous view from being taught as an article of faith or morals, to the Church…

You KNOW everyone who could, tried to find where this isn’t so… But they haven’t found it.

Honorius is ususally brought up, however he never taught error. Discussions that happened betweeen he and Sergius that led up to a scandal, was meant to be between He and Sergius. The Church didn’t even known what went on between Sergius and Honorius till 40 years after Honorius death. That alone shows no attempt was made by Honorius to teach the Church any error.
 
There have been several really bad popes in the Middle Ages. It seems that some men who did not hold to Catholic moral doctrine became pope.
 
Perhaps a pope could personally believe some heretical doctrine (as did John XXII concerning the Beatific Vision) but the Holy Spirit would absolutely prevent said pope from introducing heresy into official Church teaching.
 
Rocko said:
This is quite the complicated subject, with two very opposing sides. My uncle believes the Chair of Peter is vacant and the last valid pope was Pope Pius XII. He says that every pope since then has been a heretic and therefore cannot be pope.

I’ve been researching the topic for a while but am now a bit stuck and would like some advice. Here is the train of logic I’m following now:

From the article “White Smoke, Valid Pope” (catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp) I learned about Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in which he states that excommunication would not exclude one from actively or passively participating in a papal election.

“Oh great” I thought. There’s some solid evidence to refute his arguments. Wrong. Now he tells me that a heretic cannot even be a cardinal to begin with so he would be automatically excluded from Pope Pius XII’s ruling. He bases this argument on these two passages:

So now we see that a heretic cannot be a member of the Body of Christ, sure, but it doesn’t say anything about being excluded from papal eligibility. He then cites several Doctors of the Church who say exactly that - heretics cannot be pope, ipso facto. And of course I refute by saying those are not infallible statements made ex cathedra. Then he shows me this:

I dunno, that seems like a pretty solid argument there. I guess my only way to refute this is to somehow show that it wasn’t made ex cathedra - which is something I have no clue how to do. I understand that an infallible statement must be solemnly defined and pertaining to faith and morals. How do you know if something is “solemnly defined” or not?

And am I even going about this the right way? I mean, should I really be trying to prove that a heretic can be pope, or instead should I be trying to prove that our recent popes are/were not heretics?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
A Heretic could not become Pope, remember that it is the Holy Spirit that elects the Pope thru the Cardinals. However nothing prevents a pope once validly elected from becoming a heretic or personally hold heretical views. He could never declare heretical dogma or teach heretical Doctrine, the chrism of Infallibility would prevent this.
.
 
I am back! I shall attempt to answer your question by breaking it into the two parts you mentioned:
  1. Can a Pope be a heretic?
  2. Should you defend the post-Vatican II papacy, instead of a heretic pope?
This is somewhat complex, so bear with me.
  1. Heretical Pope?
Short answer: Yes and No. A heretic pope would cease to be a member of the Church, and therefore is automatically excommunicated. However. his heresy would have to be notorious and he would have to be admonished of his errors by a synod (all bishops need not participate, there may be only a few even). If he continued in error, he would be ipso facto excommunicated, and would be deposed as an usurper, no longer a valid pontiff. The pope is therefore not deposed as a pope, since no one may judge the Roman See, but merely is an act of recognizing what is already acknowledged: He is not a true pope.

It is important to remember these terms: Material and Formal heretic.
Material heretic: One who openly proclaims heresy, but is unaware of his heretical beliefs. Such a heretic is admonished and warned, so he may repent by knowing the orthodox way, and abandon errors he made in ignorance.
Formal Heretic: These are they, who, upon formal warning from Church authorities and notorious proclamation of falsehood, are officially declared heretics and excommunicated. Such a heretic cannot hold Church office, as they are no longer considered members of the Church, and therefore cannot hold Her highest office.

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913:
“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

Keep these words in mind as we go: “notoriously guilty.”

A little historical background:

St. Robert Bellarmine:
“The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.”

As a side note, St. Robert stated this theory. In practice, he thought this was impossible to occur.

If a man becomes a heretic, he becomed de facto a non-Christian, and therefore cannot validly hold office. How can a man be the head of a organization he does not belong to?

Now Cardinal Cajetan, a noted Thomist theologian in his field, felt there could be a heretic pope. But no man may judge the First See. How does he reconcile this?

St Robert Bellarmine again explains:
“Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.”

St. Robert than refutes this, however, with his own response, basing it on the Fathers:
“But contrary to this it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. In the second place, to depose anyone from the pontificate against the will of the deposed, is without doubt punishing him; however, to punish is proper to a superior or to a judge. In the third place, given that according to Cajetan and the other Thomists, in reality the whole and the parts taken as a whole are the same thing, he who has authority over the parts taken as a whole, being able to separate them one from another, has also authority over the whole itself which is constituted by those parts.”

Do we have examples of heretical popes? Yes, there are two notable examples.
  1. Pope John XII defended the heretical notion that the souls in purgatory behold the Beatific Vision.
  2. Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned by the Third Council of Constance as a heretic.
You may ask, why were these Popes not recognized as anti-popes?
  1. Pope John recanted his errors before death. Since he only held these views as a private teacher, and did not teach them as pope, he was not a notorious heretic and therefore did not lose the pontifical throne. Remember, part of what makes a material heretic a formal heretic is pertinacity in error, and to be a formal heretic one must first be admonished by a peer.
  2. Pope Honorius was condemned by an act of omission, for not opposing heresy, rather than comission, teaching heresy. He therefore was a bad pope, but not an illegitimate one.
Therefore, the charism of infallibility remained preserved, since neither of these popes (or others) actually taught heretical notions. Their heretical actions, were not notorious, and in the case of Pope John he recanted before admonishment by a synod.

I shall answer your second question on my next post.
 
With regards to the popes since the Second Vatican Council, two things must be taken into consideration, if one were to accept that they were invalid popes:
  • Their heresies would have to be notorious, that is, clearly apparent to the orthodox Catholic, and it would have to be widely acknowledged. Otherwise, at best their actions would be favoring heresy, but no more could be said without exceeding one’s faculties. No Catholic, no matter how orthodox, may make a unilateral declaration with regard to the authority of the pope, for he posseses not jurisdiction to do so. He is free to resist perceived errors personally, or even to encourage others to do so, but to declare the See of St. Peter vacant is totally beyond his capacity and therefore if he does he is schismatic. Again, no man may judge the Roman See.
  • The Popes would have to be admonished by a synod of bishops (The African Bishops, for example, had done this to Pope Zosimus regarding the Pelagian heresy). Upon being notifed of their heresies, the Popes would have to show pertinacity in error, that is, they would have to continue to proclaim their errors privately or publically in order to merit further action. If they did not recant, they would then be deposed as usurpers of the Papal throne, masquerading as a legitimate Prince.
As I am sure you are aware, none of the above has occured. Therefore, your uncle has no standing whatsoever to believe that the Seat of Peter has been empty since 1958, and for him to believe otherwise itself favors heresy (personal jurisdiction). Even if he believes these Popes taught errors, which may or may not be the case, he would have to recognize them as Sovereign Pontiff until such time as the Church recognized otherwise, pray for their intentions, and not attend sedevacantist Masses, in which the Holy Father is not prayed for una cum. At worst, a Council could retroactively declare that all the Popes from John XXIII on were in fact anti-popes (which, in my opinion, is pretty far fetched), and state the the Roman See was in fact vacant for 51-odd years. But until this occures, he is in error, and favoring schism, and I recommend that you encourage him to reunite with the Sovereign Pontiff until the Church says otherwise.
 
How can a council or synod depose any bishop especially the Bishop of Rome?

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea1.asp

Why Doesn’t the Pope Do Something about “Bad” Bishops?

By Fr. Robert Johansen

This Rock
Volume 17, Number 2
February 2006

…
One reason the Church is different from a corporation is the sacrament of holy orders. When a man is ordained, he is changed in his very being; he is “configured” to Christ as head and shepherd. This new identity is permanent and cannot be removed. Even if a priest is removed from the priesthood (“defrocked”), he remains a priest, sacramentally speaking, so a priest or bishop can’t be fired in the sense that a corporate employee can.
…

…
Canon law stipulates that only the pope can appoint or depose (remove) a bishop (CIC 377, 401–402). Given the nature of the sacrament of holy orders and the spiritual identity of the bishop as father to the people of his diocese, one might expect that papal intervention in the affairs of local dioceses would be rare. A perusal of Church history bears this out. While some Catholics may desire to see the pope “clean house” and remove a number of inadequate bishops en masse, you’d be hard pressed to find historical precedent for that kind of sweeping measure. Popes throughout history have removed bishops here and there, one or two at time. But those who imagine a pope setting episcopal heads to roll simply are misunderstanding how the papacy and the Church work.
…
 
Spirithound said:
There have been several really bad popes in the Middle Ages. It seems that some men who did not hold to Catholic moral doctrine became pope.
Click to expand...
But they didn’t teach error.

Impeccability is one thing and infallibility another.
 
steve_b said:
But they didn’t teach error.

Impeccability is one thing and infallibility another.
Click to expand...
Right-o!
But if they believe error without teaching it, does that make them a heretic? And does persistent, unrepentant sin constitute, or maybe just indicate a lack of belief in Catholic moral doctrine?
 
Hi Rocko,

Very thoughtful post! I’ve read this before but haven’t studied it thoroughly to give you precise answers, however, I would ask:
  1. Who decides this?
  2. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church so where would the Church be if this was so?
I remember going to a talk by Gerry Matatics that was suppose to be on the Papacy and he began pushing his views of Sedevacantism on us. He based it on the fact that Pope John Paul II uttered heresy as a cardinal, ie, before he was Pope. Infallibility only extends to the Papacy and not to the cardinals. Even a Pope can speak heresy in private and it doesn’t count because the heresy would have to be proclaimed to the whole church and intended to teach the whole church. So I don’t see where the heresy of a cardinal would undo his election and teachings from the Papacy.

A lot of times, it’s not what these ultra-traditionalists show you but what they leave out
that’s important. I would study and research more. The Feenyites are the same way. I knew one once.

May God bless,

James224
 
Any male who has reached the age of reason, is not a heretic, is not in schism, and is not “notorious” for simony can be elected pope. There have been lots of bad Popes, that doesn’t change their validity.
 
Rocko said:
This is quite the complicated subject, with two very opposing sides. My uncle believes the Chair of Peter is vacant and the last valid pope was Pope Pius XII. He says that every pope since then has been a heretic and therefore cannot be pope.

I’ve been researching the topic for a while but am now a bit stuck and would like some advice. Here is the train of logic I’m following now:

From the article “White Smoke, Valid Pope” (catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp) I learned about Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in which he states that excommunication would not exclude one from actively or passively participating in a papal election.

“Oh great” I thought. There’s some solid evidence to refute his arguments. Wrong. Now he tells me that a heretic cannot even be a cardinal to begin with so he would be automatically excluded from Pope Pius XII’s ruling. He bases this argument on these two passages:

So now we see that a heretic cannot be a member of the Body of Christ, sure, but it doesn’t say anything about being excluded from papal eligibility. He then cites several Doctors of the Church who say exactly that - heretics cannot be pope, ipso facto. And of course I refute by saying those are not infallible statements made ex cathedra. Then he shows me this:

I dunno, that seems like a pretty solid argument there. I guess my only way to refute this is to somehow show that it wasn’t made ex cathedra - which is something I have no clue how to do. I understand that an infallible statement must be solemnly defined and pertaining to faith and morals. How do you know if something is “solemnly defined” or not?

And am I even going about this the right way? I mean, should I really be trying to prove that a heretic can be pope, or instead should I be trying to prove that our recent popes are/were not heretics?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Why not? As long as his official stands on things are not “heretical” couldn’t he be a wild heretic?
Priests can be. He’s just another priest, but only really has power when making dogma unless I am mistaken.
Odds are many were. Perhaps not in matters of dogma. Thats why there is not much dogma? 😃
 
Spirithound said:
Right-o!
But if they believe error without teaching it, does that make them a heretic?
Click to expand...
Definitionally, (according to the dictionary)

Heresy is

adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b**:** denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c**:** an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

the CCC says

**2089 **"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

The doctrine of infallibility protects the Church from a pope teaching heresy on a matter of faith ans morals, not from a pope believing an erronious view…
40.png
spirit:
And does persistent, unrepentant sin constitute, or maybe just indicate a lack of belief in Catholic moral doctrine?
Click to expand...
I think the key word there is unrepentant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top