Can A Pope Or Bishop Preach Heresy?

[Catholic4Jesus]

Isn’t it true that there have been popes and bishops throughout history that have preached heresy? And what happens when/if they do? Are we still obligated to be subject to them or are we forbidden to continue to follow them at that point?

Our Lady of La Sallette said: “In the end times, Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichirst. The Church shall be in eclipse.”

Does that mean that the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him will lose the faith and will the Antichrist or False Prophet be a Roman Catholic Pope or Bishop?

Many Traditionalists (namely those who belong to the SSPX or who are Sedevacantists) claim that the prophecy of Our Lady of La Sallette has already come to pass and that they’re the remnant Church and that the Holy See has lost the faith.

P.S. I am a recovering Traditionalist (grew up in an independent parish) for those who don’t know. And am wondering about what the prophecy LaSallette really meant.

God bless.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

Isn’t it true that there have been popes and bishops throughout history that have preached heresy? And what happens when/if they do? Are we still obligated to be subject to them or are we forbidden to continue to follow them at that point?

Our Lady of La Sallette said: “In the end times, Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichirst. The Church shall be in eclipse.”

Does that mean that the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him will lose the faith and will the Antichrist or False Prophet be a Roman Catholic Pope or Bishop?

Many Traditionalists (namely those who belong to the SSPX or who are Sedevacantists) claim that the prophecy of Our Lady of La Sallette has already come to pass and that they’re the remnant Church and that the Holy See has lost the faith.

P.S. I am a recovering Traditionalist (grew up in an independent parish) for those who don’t know. And am wondering about what the prophecy LaSallette really meant.

God bless.

An individual pope can do so, just as an individual bishop can. If I was pope I would not be protected from, say, not believing in the trinity, and historically we see many popes who were obviously not deserving of the position. The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Pope John XII “The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in one person — a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium.”

The problem, however, with Traditionalism is that Vatican II was not the unofficial position of a single pope, it was an Ecumenical Council who’s doctrines are those which have been declared by the Magesterium to be true. As I said before an individual Pope can believe heresy, but it is impossible for any sort of heresy or even half truth to be preached or upheld by the Magesterium as a legitimate tenant of the Catholic faith.

 

[adrift]

Isn’t it true that there have been popes and bishops throughout history that have preached heresy?

I am not certain what you mean here. We have had bad Pope’s and Bishops. But never in the office of Pope did he teach a hersey. I don’t know of a pope who held a heresy as true.

And what happens when/if they do? Are we still obligated to be subject to them or are we forbidden to continue to follow them at that point?

If is a big word. The fact is they won’t. If they did, than Jesus lied about the Holy Sprit protecting the Church.

Our Lady of La Sallette said: “In the end times, Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichirst. The Church shall be in eclipse.”

I had never read about this apparition until you posted. I couldn’t find that Our Lady said this.
I read that there were two secrets and that one was never revealed. The other had doubt of it’s authenticity. The text I found for the one secret does not have that quote either.
I doubt if Mary said this.

Does that mean that the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him will lose the faith and will the Antichrist or False Prophet be a Roman Catholic Pope or Bishop?

Until you produce the source it only means that there are many being misled.

 

[MilesVitae]

If is a big word. The fact is they won’t. If they did, than Jesus lied about the Holy Sprit protecting the Church.

But not all teachings of the Pope (let alone individual Bishops) are protected by the charism of infallibility - only definitive, universal teachings on faith and morals. So, it would seem that even a Pope could, in theory, teach a heresy in a context with which infallibility is not concerned - for instance, in a non-definitive way in an encyclical.

 

[Windmill]

A lot of people would be surprised to know that there have been popes who have believed heretical ideas. Believing heresy doesn’t make one, ipso facto, a heretic. It would be material heresy but not formal heresy. You have to know it is heresy and believe it anyway. IOW, it has to be pointed out to you and you still have to persist in your error to be a heretic.

Beyond that, a pope or bishop can knowingly hold a heresy in private but never make that heretical position public. This would make him an “occult heretic” (meaning, the heretical belief is hidden and not publicly known). In this case, the bishop (or even pope) would be excommunicated BUT would maintain his jurisdiction until his heresy became known. This means that every sacrament he celebrated would be valid, every ruling he made would be binding on his subjects, and every priest he ordained would have valid orders. He would still have the right to rule his diocese since his heresy is not publicly known. The reason for this is simple: unless we know a man is in heresy, we must assume he has a valid claim to his See and right to exercise his authority - and we have the duty to obey him in virtue of his office.

Now, as to teaching heresy, you have to take a step back here. A pope may personally believe something heretical, but he is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit not to impose heresy on the universal church as doctrine. It is a negative guarantee. It does not mean that everything he says is the whole truth - there may be gaps. It doesn’t mean that he will always speak the truth - he may shrink from his responsibility to speak out on an issue or give a clarification of a doctrine in question. It means that when he speaks in his full capacity as Pope imposing a teaching as an article of faith, then he will never teach error.

Pope John XXII held to a heretical belief regarding the Beatific Vision. He said that a soul would not see God until the Last Judgement. His views were challenged and proven to be heretical, but the Pope recanted his views before he died. The point being: the belief was shown to be clearly wrong and he changed his view in light of the evidence.

If you or I were to be asked to define the Trinity, we’d probably says something heretical. That wouldn’t make us a heretic. Once we were shown what the Church teaches, I’m sure everyone here would immediately conform their position to the Magisterial teaching. We’d have to persist in our error to be a formal heretic and incur the penalties that apply. Same with Popes and bishops.

 

[Anthony86]

adrift:

But never in the office of Pope did he teach a hersey. I don’t know of a pope who held a heresy as true.

Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius, but the Church later on upheld St. Athanasius’ position against the Arians. Liberius was subsequently the first pope not to be a canonical Saint. Liberius may not have issued explicitly Arian statements of faith though (some of his statements on the heresy are at best ambiguous, however) and his excommunication of St. Athanasius may have been issued under duress.

Pope Honorius I apparently held the heresy of Monothelism to be true; he was actually excommunicated by name after his death for being a heretic. He did not define the doctrine ex cathedra, though, so it does not conflict with the way papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I.

adrift:

If they did, than Jesus lied about the Holy Sprit protecting the Church.

The Holy Spirit guards the Church, but that does not mean the human beings belonging to the Church Militant are categorically protected from all theological error - not even the bishops and popes. Papal infallibility was defined in a rather circumscribed way by Vatican I, and relates to specific exercises of his teaching authority ex cathedra.

Episcopal authority and papal supremacy are not to be confused with infallibility.

MilesVitae:

But not all teachings of the Pope (let alone individual Bishops) are protected by the charism of infallibility - only definitive, universal teachings on faith and morals. So, it would seem that even a Pope could, in theory, teach a heresy in a context with which infallibility is not concerned - for instance, in a non-definitive way in an encyclical.

Agreed.

 

[Windmill]

Another point I forgot to add: to be a heretic under the current code of canon law, you have to pertinaciously hold to an erroneous belief concerning a de fide dogma. So, for example, Pope Benedict has spoken out against the idea of Limbo. However, this is not a de fide dogma, so even if he were wrong in his belief, it doesn’t make him a heretic. He’s just wrong. Pope John Paul II is not a heretic because he prayed with leaders of other faiths in Assisi. He made a prudential decision even though there were those in the Church (including Ratzinger) who had reservations at the time. But he did not do anything that explicitly denied a dogma of the faith.

I say this because many misuse the term “heretic” to mean more than it really means under canon law.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

Another point I forgot to add: to be a heretic under the current code of canon law, you have to pertinaciously hold to an erroneous belief concerning a de fide dogma. So, for example, Pope Benedict has spoken out against the idea of Limbo. However, this is not a de fide dogma, so even if he were wrong in his belief, it doesn’t make him a heretic. He’s just wrong. Pope John Paul II is not a heretic because he prayed with leaders of other faiths in Assisi. He made a prudential decision even though there were those in the Church (including Ratzinger) who had reservations at the time. But he did not do anything that explicitly denied a dogma of the faith.

I say this because many misuse the term “heretic” to mean more than it really means under canon law.

I always thought that the Church has always dogmatically condemned praying with other faiths. Was John Paul II praying to the false gods of the other religions? And also, why did he do it?

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

I still want to know about Our Lady of LaSallete.

Was the prophecy speaking about the Magisterium falling away from the faith?
Will the Antichrist or the False Prophet be a Pope or a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[thistle]

But not all teachings of the Pope (let alone individual Bishops) are protected by the charism of infallibility - only definitive, universal teachings on faith and morals. So, it would seem that even a Pope could, in theory, teach a heresy in a context with which infallibility is not concerned - for instance, in a non-definitive way in an encyclical.

Heresy only applies to rejecting infallible teachings.
Rejecting non-infallible teachings would be a mortal sin but not heresy.

 

[Megan7]

Isn’t it true that there have been popes and bishops throughout history that have preached heresy? And what happens when/if they do? Are we still obligated to be subject to them or are we forbidden to continue to follow them at that point?

Our Lady of La Sallette said: “In the end times, Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichirst. The Church shall be in eclipse.”

Does that mean that the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him will lose the faith and will the Antichrist or False Prophet be a Roman Catholic Pope or Bishop?

Many Traditionalists (namely those who belong to the SSPX or who are Sedevacantists) claim that the prophecy of Our Lady of La Sallette has already come to pass and that they’re the remnant Church and that the Holy See has lost the faith.

P.S. I am a recovering Traditionalist (grew up in an independent parish) for those who don’t know. And am wondering about what the prophecy LaSallette really meant.

God bless.

 

[Genesis315]

I still want to know about Our Lady of LaSallete.

Was the prophecy speaking about the Magisterium falling away from the faith?
Will the Antichrist or the False Prophet be a Pope or a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church?

There are two versions of these “secrets.” The first was approved, and a later one was put on the Index of Forbidden books. Only the latter contains the “Rome will lose the faith” part. Such a statement, if applied to the Church of Rome, is heretical. In the Bull Licet Ea, condemning the erros of Peter de Osma, Sixtus IV definitively condemned the following proposition"the Church of the City of Rome can fall into error" (see Dz 730, older numbering)–in other words, the Church of Rome cannot corporately defect just as the entire Church cannot defect–the Church will always have her head.

Here is the two versions of the La Sallette secrets, a timeline, and the relevant decrees:

jloughnan.tripod.com/salsecrt.htm
jloughnan.tripod.com/salchronol.htm
jloughnan.tripod.com/sal_decr.htm

Here’s photographs of the originals at the bottom of this page (its SSPX, just to show this is not some anti-trad conspiracy to hide the later secret):
sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2003/Jul-Dec/Secret_of_La_Salette.htm

To me, the censured later one seems like a pretty obvious attempt by an overzealous person trying to sensationalize the secrets and use them to prove the evilness of that time period. For example, between the original secrets and the appearance of the one on the Index, Rome was invaded, the papacy driven out (Bl. Pius IX became a prisoner in the Vatican), and the Liberal regime of the excommunicated Victor Emmanuel II was established there in its place–thus Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of the Antichrist. Masonic Lodges were also established (the churches of the evil spirits). The evil spirits transporting people probably refer to the regime’s national railroad system, a portion of which was taken from the Papal States with the invasion of Rome. The railroad had previously been banned in the Papal States by Gregory XVI who called then chemins d’enfer (ways of Hell),due to how it was being used to further the Liberal Italian unification cause–railroads being built in the papal states was one of Bl. Pius IX’s early concessions to the Liberals.

The descriptions of bad books, convents, and clerical life also fits the time period. St. Anthony Mary Claret’s autobiography gives good insight on this time period. In it, he notes how Catholic communities were being corrupted by bad books brought in the boat-load (cf. pars. 549, 718, etc.). Likewise, his whole minsitry was to go around preaching because the priests were bad in so many places and the convents were a mess. For example, this is what he was told when he went to Madrid:

1. Madrid, April 15, 1864. A very pious and zealous lady told me, “There is a great deal of ignorance among the clergy. A great number of country parishes would be better off if the people had no priest at all, and just said the rosary together, rather than having to listen to the Mass of a stupid and immoral priest who does nothing but scandalize them.”

Same with convents:

1. Those who have dealt with nuns know that in a community in which common life is not observed there can be no real perfection. Instead of describing the resultant sad state of affairs myself, I would like to let a novice in one such convent describe it in her own words as she does in a letter she wrote to me, dated December 18, 1862.
2. "I find myself here in this convent. For the love of God and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ I beg you to take me out of this hell I’m in. It’s not a convent, it’s a tenement. There’s no peace here; it’s just one big maze. There’s nothing here to please me. If our bishop knew what goes on in this convent, he would have closed it down long ago. I am about ready to make my profession, and I’ll be a nun fit for hell. I can’t trust anyone. My only hope is that through you, your Excellency, I will find some remedy and salvation for my soul. Since you are Her Majesty’s confessor, you should counsel her to make a royal decree forbidding any novice to make her profession in any convent in which common life is not observed.

“Dear Sir, I’m not telling you the half of it. What a sad life it is! It’s like a death: all I can do is suffer and hold my tongue. I hope that your Excellency will be able to remedy it somehow before the day of my profession comes. Everyone who lives in individualistic convents is going through the same thing I am. God only knows what goes on in convents like this. Help me quickly–time is running out; my profession is coming soon and I’ll be caught beyond remedy in the deepest compromise.”
alabamacatholicresources.com/PDFs/St.%20Anthony%20Mary%20Claret%20-%20The%20Autobiography%20of.pdf

 

[Genesis315]

I always thought that the Church has always dogmatically condemned praying with other faiths. Was John Paul II praying to the false gods of the other religions? And also, why did he do it?

As for any dogmatic condemnation, canonists have understood this as mere positive law, with an underlying presumption related to divine law. Religious indifference, syncretism, or the scandal of such is what is forbidden by divine law (Vatican II says the same thing). There was an underlying general presumption that common public prayer (meaing their offical rites, not informal prayer) with non-Catholics was a danger of indifference. However, provided the prayers are orthodox and indifference or the scandal of such is not a danger, then it is ok. Therefore, the question is one of fact (is the underlying presumption applicable to a particular case or not), not one of dogma. Some of the more cautious permissions for inter-faith meetings and prayer granted by Pius XII probably led to the questioning of whether the presumption should universally apply, since these meetings did not lead to indifferentism.

Praying to false gods or praying prayers that go contrary to the faith are always sinful of course. Bl. John Paul II did not do this, but prayed to the one God openly, even in the midst of non-Catholics.

Take the Assisi gathering, for example. All the addresses on it I have read from Pope John Paul II on this refer to prayer to the Creator or Absolute Being, etc. he does not encourage anyone to adore creatures or other things of a contingent essence. Such prayers themselves addressed to God would not be evil in and of themselves as they are not contrary to reason. For example, if you’re evangelizing someone who believes in God, but does not have the faith, it would not be wrong, as part of your efforts, to encourage them to pray to God for the truth or for wisdom and faith or even to pray with them toward those ends, etc. Along those lines, I don’t think asking someone to pray to God for peace is itself evil. It would be wrong to encourage them to adore or place their faith in an idol, of course, or to imply the relgious differences don’t matter.

John Paul II did not do this, plus, he preached Jesus Christ to the non-Catholics gathered there. For example, the Pope did state to all present that “peace bears the name of Jesus Christ.” Additionally he said:

“I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Saviour of all, true peace is to be found, “peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near”. His birth was greeted by the angels’ song: “Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom he is pleased”. He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace and through his Death and Resurrection he brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth. To use an expression of Paul the Apostle: “He is our peace.””
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19861027_prayer-peace-assisi-final_en.html

 

[adrift]

Pope Liberius excommunicated St. Athanasius, but the Church later on upheld St. Athanasius’ position against the Arians. Liberius was subsequently the first pope not to be a canonical Saint. Liberius may not have issued explicitly Arian statements of faith though (some of his statements on the heresy are at best ambiguous, however) and his excommunication of St. Athanasius may have been issued under duress.

The question is about heresy. Excommunication would not fall under heresy but discipline. A Pope as you noted can make mistakes. They are not impeccable.

Pope Honorius I apparently held the heresy of Monothelism to be true; he was actually excommunicated by name after his death for being a heretic. He did not define the doctrine ex cathedra, though, so it does not conflict with the way papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I.

Apparently covers a lot of ground. Investigating your claim I could not find verification that he held this view. Even if he did he did not “preach” it.

The Holy Spirit guards the Church, but that does not mean the human beings belonging to the Church Militant are categorically protected from all theological error - not even the bishops and popes. Papal infallibility was defined in a rather circumscribed way by Vatican I, and relates to specific exercises of his teaching authority ex cathedra.

True I never said differently

Episcopal authority and papal supremacy are not to be confused with infallibility.

The protection of the Holy Spirit is not only with infallibility. The Church will not can not teach that which is false.

INFALLIBILITY, EPISCOPAL
Preservation from error of the bishops of the Catholic Church. They are infallible when all the bishops of the Church are assembled in a general council or, scattered over the earth, they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility, like that of the Pope, includes not only revealed truths but any teaching, even historical facts, principles of philosophy, or norms of the natural law that are in any way connected with divine revelation.

The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching faith or morals as to be held by all the faithful.

 

[Michael1966]

Can A Pope Or Bishop Preach Heresy?
*
It seems, “yes”, if we trust the judgement of the Third Council of Constantinople. Pope Honorius I was anathemitized and condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople, for his view that Christ had only one will.

*One could get around this by saying the council was mistaken, but that seems a little bit “tricksy” to me without good evidence to show that the council was wrong. I think if we are to follow the historical trail as we normally would then we would conclude that Honorius very likely sanctioned what was later considered to be a heretical error. If we proceed from a view that no Pope could ever teach error then you may as well not look at historical evidence, as no evidence that is contrary to that belief could ever be accepted - so you have a self-supporting claim that filters out contrary evidence (“confirmation bias”).

More from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
And from OrthodoxWiki: orthodoxwiki.org/Honorius_I_of_Rome

 

[jp]

I also have trouble with the the OP’s question. After looking online to answer another CA thread, I came across Mortalium Animos from Pope Pius XI. Now, since that document clearly contradicts some of the Vatican II documents, would that mean that Pope Pius XI taught in error or was being heretical?

In short, Mortalium Animos condemns ecumenical prayers and meetings, which is of course encouraged today. I had to go through and read the whole thing to double check… no it was very clear… some quotes are below. Any (name removed by moderator)ut or thoughts are appreciated!

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

source: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

 

[Genesis315]

Mortalium Animos is addressing a specific kind of assembly or society. See Mortalium Animos 7. It addressing societies that state the unity of Christ’s Church has failed, that the Church now consists of various separated branches which are to be reconciled and united by compromise of their differences. They sought to establish a visible Communion based on the lowest common denominator or compromises in doctrine.

A Catholic could not be a member of such an organization since its stated goals are in and of themselves contrary to the faith on two main points–that the Church is no longer one (which is not the same as saying that all the baptized lack unity amongst themselves) and that the unity of the Church can be re-achieved through compromise in the deposit of faith. A Catholic cannot work toward those false ends.

Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism and Ut Unum Sint reject both of these false ends as well (and it is one reason the Catholic Church has chosen not to be a member of the World Council of Churches***). Participation in a conference with non-Catholics can be permitted by the Church when such participation does not imply assent to the above propositions and where the goal of the Catholic participants is true unity in the entire deposit of faith and in hierarchy of government in the Catholic Church.

Participation in such conferences has been permitted (with oversight and by athorized persons) since there has been the separation of the baptized from the Church. It has just been done on a greater scale since Vatican II made it a priority.

So there’s no contradiction in principle between Mortalium Animos and Vatican II/Ut Unum Sint.

***here is how the diocese of Westminister explains why we are not members of the World Council of Churches–it’s the same reasons given in Mortalium Animos.
Diocese of Westminister:

But Catholics believe that the whole of our belief, including the unique ministry of the Pope as successor to St Peter and of all the bishops as successors to the Apostles, is essential to the unity of the one visible Church of Christ. Formally joining the World Council of Churches could signal that the Catholic Church is prepared to accept that the core of faith is only what all Christians can agree on, the highest common factor, to which the rest of our Catholic faith, Church structure and sacramental life, is additional or even optional.

There are many different ways of being the Church – different rites and orders, distinctive and diverse traditions – but these cannot in the end remain separate from each other. It is the nature of the universal Church in all its richness and diversity to be for all, and not dividing into different followings. So the Catholic Church, as not only part of but also the fullest expression of the one Church of Christ, feels that membership of the World Council of Churches could compound the sin of division and formalise separation, rather than transcend it.

rcdow.org.uk/ecumenism/default.asp?library_ref=34&content_ref=2322

 

[jp]

Thanks for your thorough answer Genesis. The link to the Diocese of Westminster was also very helpful.

 

[adrift]

Can A Pope Or Bishop Preach Heresy?
*
It seems, “yes”, if we trust the judgement of the Third Council of Constantinople. Pope Honorius I was anathemitized and condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople, for his view that Christ had only one will.

*One could get around this by saying the council was mistaken, but that seems a little bit “tricksy” to me without good evidence to show that the council was wrong. I think if we are to follow the historical trail as we normally would then we would conclude that Honorius very likely sanctioned what was later considered to be a heretical error. If we proceed from a view that no Pope could ever teach error then you may as well not look at historical evidence, as no evidence that is contrary to that belief could ever be accepted - so you have a self-supporting claim that filters out contrary evidence (“confirmation bias”).

More from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
And from OrthodoxWiki: orthodoxwiki.org/Honorius_I_of_Rome

In the recent answer for Ask an Apologist it states in part

Pope Honorius was condemned decades after his death for allowing the heresy to spread by not cracking down on it. He was not considered to have actually taught the heresy as Christian doctrine. This is confirmed by Pope Leo II’s explanation of the condemnation:

This is what the historian Warren Carroll also states in his book The Cleaving of Christendom.