Can a heretic become pope? If so, then what?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wisdo44
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wisdo44

Guest
There is something that I don’t quite fully understand about the doctrine of papal infallibility.

What happens if a heretic becomes pope? I know, you are thinking, this is impossible…the Cardinals would never vote a heretic to be pope. Suppose however that he posed to be a devout, orthodox theologian, but interiorly, he was a completely unorthodox Catholic. He becomes pope. Farfetched, yes, but it doesn’t seem entirely impossible. We have had bad popes before.

Suppose he even teaches blatant heresy. Is he still a legitimate pope?

I hope my question makes sense. If you need any clarifications, let me know.
 
We have had Popes who personally were sinful in their private lives, sure. Probaby Popes who were privately heretical or irreligious in their beliefs as well. We have also had - and currently have - anti-popes - schismatics who claim the papcy.

Isn’t it interesting, though, that we have never had a Pope, not even the worst of them, who TAUGHT heresy from the Papal throne and required all Catholic faithful to believe anything heretical? To me that is evidence of Christ and the Holy Spirit protecting the church.

If you believe in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will never prevail, then it will indeed prove impossible for any Pope, however sinful, irreligious or heretical he is privately, to teach heresy.
 
If a heretic ever became pope, he would never ever introduce his heresy into Church teaching – God would see to that!

You should read the interesting story of Pope Vigilius. At the time the Monophysite heresy was in full swing, having the Empress Theodora as a powerful adherent and some of the bishops of the East. Pope Agapitus had deposed the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople to the chagrin of the Empress. Pope Agapitus died and the Empress approached Vigilius to find out what he would do if she helped him become pope. He promised to nullify the Council of Chalecedon which condemned the Monophysite heresy. The empress made arrangements for Vigilius to receive 700 lbs of gold when he became pope. Silverius succeeded Agapitus, and Silverius refused to reinstate the heretical patriarch of Constantinople. The empress the ordered one of her generals to Rome to arrest the pope. He was arrested and exiled to an island where he died of starvation. It’s very possible Vigilius had a hand in Agapitus’ demise as well as Silverius’ exile. Vigilius then became pope because everyone was afraid to oppose him after what happened to his two predecessors. Guess what happened? When the Empress tried to make Vigilius make good on his promises, he replied, “Far be this from me , Lady Augusta; formerly I spoke wrongly and foolishly, but now I assuredly refuse to restore a man who is a heretic and under anathema. Though unworthy, I am vicar of Blessed Peter the Apostle,as were my predecessors, the most holy Agapitus and Silverius, who condemned him.” Vigilius paid for his opposition to the Emperor later over a theological issue and for opposing the Emperor’s attempts to meddle in the teaching authority of the Church. Emperor Justin had Vigilius confined on an island, spending 10 years in captivity. Vigilius’ response? Do with me what you wish. This is the just punishment for what I have done." Vigilius was released, but he died on his way back to Rome. I think that’s a powerful example of God’s protection of the infallibility of the office of Peter.
 
When the fathers of the First Vatican Council studied this issue of papal infalliblity, they found a handful of popes who at one time or another professed heresy–but they never definitively proclaimed it as a doctrine to be believed by the universal Church.

A great example is John XXII who erroneously believed we wouldn’t experience the beatific vision until after the Second Coming. To end the confusion on this issue, his successor, Benedict XII definitive proclaimed the true dogma infallibly here:

Benedictus Deus (On the Beatific Vision of God)1336
 
Suppose he even teaches blatant heresy. Is he still a legitimate pope?
Click to expand...
There’s a theory that says that a Pope deliberately teaching manifest heresy would have automatically excommunicated himself, meaning that he would no longer be Pope. It’s unclear how that would be judged, probably by the manifest consensus of all the cardinals and bishops that the man was no longer Pope and the unanimous appointment of another Pope. But it has never happened that a Pope has done this, so thankfully, it has never been tested.
 
JPrejean said:
There’s a theory that says that a Pope deliberately teaching manifest heresy would have automatically excommunicated himself, meaning that he would no longer be Pope. It’s unclear how that would be judged, probably by the manifest consensus of all the cardinals and bishops that the man was no longer Pope and the unanimous appointment of another Pope. But it has never happened that a Pope has done this, so thankfully, it has never been tested.
Click to expand...
Thanks, JPrejean. This was really at what I was getting at.

Do you know where I could read more about such a theory? Does this theory refute papal infallibility? If not, how do they reconcile with one another?
 
Here’s a bit of the discussion from De Roman Pontifice by St. Robert Bellarmine:
pmbackup.homestead.com/deromanopontifice.html

The rationale for a Pope being automatically deposed for manifest, as opposed to occult (hidden), heresy is as follows:
The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics * are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved*
The theory is more or less that if you had to speculate about whether the Pope were or weren’t a heretic without having any way of knowing, then it would be practically impossible for the Pope to exercise any external authority, so it is only in cases where the Pope is a public heretic who had more or less removed himself from the Church by his public confession that his authority would be thereby nullified. But like I said, it’s never happened. Even the rare instances of private heresy were never publicly proclaimed in any official way.
Click to expand...
 
I believe that the Pope possesses the fullness of the charism of the Sacred Magisterium, and that as a result, it is impossible for the Pope to fall into heresy.

If a heretic were elected Pope, he would not be Pope until he accepted his election; when he does that, by an act of his free will, God’s grace then gives him the fullness of the charism of the Sacred Magisterium and his heresy will immediately be vanquished. In my opinion.

See my article which addresses this question.
catholicplanet.com/TSM/three-charisms.htm
 
Wisdo44 said:
There is something that I don’t quite fully understand about the doctrine of papal infallibility.

What happens if a heretic becomes pope? I know, you are thinking, this is impossible…the Cardinals would never vote a heretic to be pope. Suppose however that he posed to be a devout, orthodox theologian, but interiorly, he was a completely unorthodox Catholic. He becomes pope. Farfetched, yes, but it doesn’t seem entirely impossible. We have had bad popes before.

Suppose he even teaches blatant heresy. Is he still a legitimate pope?

I hope my question makes sense. If you need any clarifications, let me know.
Click to expand...
I think someone brought this question up right after Peter. How long has it been since???👍
 
Wisdo44 said:
Do you know where I could read more about such a theory? Does this theory refute papal infallibility? If not, how do they reconcile with one another?
Click to expand...
I think it would take more than a mere theory to refute papal infallibility. You’d need to actually point to facts that disprove papal infallibility – and thank God, there aren’t any.

(That doesn’t stop me hoping that certain people never get within a mile of the Throne of St. Peter.)
 
There’s a theory that says that a Pope deliberately teaching manifest heresy would have automatically excommunicated himself, meaning that he would no longer be Pope.
Click to expand...
No. Because the Pope, as Supreme Legislator…is “above” canon law so to speak.

The Pope, by the nature of his office, cannot be excommunicated, automatically or otherwise.

He is the source of canon law’s excommunicative powers, and if he does something that would otherwise lead to an automatic excommunication…it is as if he gave himself a dispensation.

But that “theory” isn’t needed anyway because it shows a lack of faith in God. It tries to make infallibility a mere human legal construct: “if the Pope tried to teach heresy, then for that reason he has ceased to be Pope”. But upon analysis that statement makes infallibility just a tautology, merely the logical result of a definition which by its very premise excludes a pope ever teaching heresy (because if he did, he would stop being Pope). But that’s just a self-fullfilling prophecy contruct that isn’t helpful at all in defining dogma or determining what we should believe (because anyone who wants to can question that a Pope was a heretic at any definition. If you want to believe that the Assumption is a heresy…just say that Pius ceased to be Pope upon declaring it!) The point is…it doesnt work, and this “theory” floated around is a simplistic understanding.

The real explanation is much simpler (though requires more trust): The Pope WONT teach heresy ex cathedra. It has nothing to do with the Pope losing his office IF he tried to teach heresy. It is merely the faith that if someone is Pope then they wont teach heresy.
 
No. Because the Pope, as Supreme Legislator…is “above” canon law so to speak.
Click to expand...
It would be a matter of natural law and divine revelation, not canon law. Even the Pope cannot change natural law, and that is the point being emphasized here. The Pope’s canonical authority does not override the principles by which he has the power.

The “theory” was advanced by a Doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, so calling it “simplistic” seems a bit hasty. I myself am not advocating it; I am merely remarking that the Church does not seem to have spoken authoritatively on the matter. Since it has never happened, it is purely hypothetical anyway.

You’re also confused about what the theory is. Infallibility is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of objective truth. The point of infallibility is not to resolve people’s private opinions, but to serve as an objective standard. People can “say” whatever they like; they can even deny infallibility altogether in the first place. Infallibility is not directed toward people who allow their private opinions to serve as judges over the faith, and for them, the assertion of infallibility is circular. But that is not its purpose. “Manifest heresy” is thus an objective term based on the nature of what is said, irrespective of who is saying it (the Assumption, for example, is objectively not manifest heresy). The Pope’s power is not to change the objective content of the faith; it is what it is, and whatever canonical authority the Pope has does not extend to changing this.
 
According to the Papal Bull called CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, a heretic *** cannot *** be validly elected pope, even with the UNANIMOUS vote of the Cardinals and acceptance by the entire Church.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
According to the Papal Bull called CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, a heretic *** cannot *** be validly elected pope, even with the UNANIMOUS vote of the Cardinals and acceptance by the entire Church.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, that Papal Bull is an exercise of the temporal authority of the Church. In other words, it is not a teaching, but a rule or law. Even though a Pope may declare a law or rule to be ‘valid in perpetuity’, it is not. If it were, then each subsequent Pope would have ever less authority, being bound by all the decisions valid in perpetuity of all the previous Popes. But it is not possible for the authority of successive Popes to continually diminish. Therefore, such rules are not valid in perpetuity, but can be amended or nullified by subsequent Popes or Councils.

So, here is an example of the limits of the infallibility of the Pope. Not everything decreed by a Pope is infallible. Teachings may be, but rules are not.

As an example of this, Pope Sixtus V forbid anyone to change his edition of the Latin Vulgate, published in 1590. But a subsequent Pope, Clement VIII, made three new editions, published in 1592, 1593, and 1598. The latter edition was the official Latin Bible in the Church for several hundred years.

Also, it should be noted that many sedevacantists use that Bull to claim that the Popes since Vatican II are invalid, and yet they are valid.

Concerning what makes an elected Pope valid, the current law in the Church, written by Pope John Paul II and still in effect, explicitly states that all previous rules are null and void. JP2 gives main three criteria for validity:
  1. valid election
  2. consecration as Bishop
  3. acceptance of the office
Ron
 
Also, it should be noted that many sedevacantists use that Bull to claim that the Popes since Vatican II are invalid, and yet they are valid.
Click to expand...
Oh, now I see why you are concerned. The sedevacantists misuse Bellarmine on this point as well. As you note, the election of the Popes by the cardinalate is established by canon law, and the canonical rules may change as necessary for the best administration of the Church. In that respect, you are correct that the Bull covers a matter of discipline not doctrine. St. Robert is, on the other hand, dealing with the hypothetical case regarding objective heresy and the natural law (matters that do not depend on canon law).

Per St. Robert’s argument, it is a principle of natural law that anyone using his office to publicly teach contrary to the Catholic faith is automatically deprived of the dignity of that office, and his actions in that office are of no more objective effect. In the case of the Pope, since there is no agent to judge the Pope himself, it would have to be a case so clear that no one holding the true faith could doubt that what he was teaching was heresy. Infallibility would still hold true in that case, because it would be entirely obvious that the Pope in question was not acting withing the scope of his ecclesial office.

The confusion of doctrine and discipline among sedevacantists is common, so I can see where this would trouble you. I can assure you that I do not share this simplistic view, and neither did St. Robert.
 
I disagree with St. Robert. The Pope is a special case. Other persons might be deprived of their office due to a thorough violation of the moral law (which is Church teaching in cases involving civil government).

But the Pope is no ordinary person, nor is he an ordinary Bishop. The Pope has the fullness of the Sacred Magisterium, therefore, he cannot teach outright heresy (though he can err on doctrine), he cannot become a heretic (though he can sin in other ways), and if a heretic were validly elected Pope, upon freely accepting the office, he would cease to be a heretic by the gift of the Sacred Magisterium.

Ron
 
I disagree with St. Robert.
Click to expand...
And you are certainly free to do so, as this question is within the range of permissible theological speculation. I only wanted to make sure that you realized that the sedevacantists do not rightly represent his teaching on the subject.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
According to the Papal Bull called CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, a heretic *** cannot *** be validly elected pope, even with the UNANIMOUS vote of the Cardinals and acceptance by the entire Church.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
Click to expand...
And according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, the bull in effect before *Universo Dominici Gregis *on conclaves:
“None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”
Click to expand...
So actually, since a heretic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, at the time of John XXIII’s election, it did not render the cardinals ineligible for election.
 
Ron_Conte said:
I believe that the Pope possesses the fullness of the charism of the Sacred Magisterium, and that as a result, it is impossible for the Pope to fall into heresy.

If a heretic were elected Pope, he would not be Pope until he accepted his election; when he does that, by an act of his free will, God’s grace then gives him the fullness of the charism of the Sacred Magisterium and his heresy will immediately be vanquished. In my opinion.

See my article which addresses this question.
catholicplanet.com/TSM/three-charisms.htm
Click to expand...
I agree, and I cited an historical example in my first post – Pope Vigilius
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top