Can a Pope teach or commit heresy?

[Ron_Conte]

This topic came up as an aside in another thread. I’m offering the topic for general discussion in its own thread.

My position is that no Pope can ever teach heresy, nor fall into the sins of apostasy or heresy or schism.

The dogma that the Church is indefectible implies that Her head must also be indefectible. A Church with a corrupt head cannot be said to be indefectible. The Pope is the captain and pilot of the Ark of Salvation. If the Pope has gone astray, the ship he guides will also go astray. So the indefectibility of the Church implies an indefectible Pope.

The First Vatican Council taught that the faith of each successor of Peter has the gift from God of truth and of a faith that can never fail. But if a Pope teaches heresy, he does not have the gift of truth. Or if he falls into apostasy, heresy, or schism, his faith has failed. So we are left with the necessary conclusion that no Pope can teach heresy, nor fall into the sins of apostasy or heresy or schism.

“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”

 

[Wesrock]

I know that a pope cannot teach heresy in an exercise of the magisterium. I don’t know how much more broadly it can be applied. We certainly have had bad individuals in the office before.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I know that a pope cannot teach heresy in an exercise of the magisterium. I don’t know how much more broadly it can be applied. We certainly have had bad individuals in the office before.

I don’t see how a Pope can both have the gift of “a never-failing faith” and adhere to heresy privately, though not teach it. Faith is of the person; it is an infused theological virtue.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

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

 

[Ron_Conte]

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

That assertion is a counter-factual hypothetical. If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain. The Pope cannot cease to be a member of the Church, since he is its Head and the Rock on which it is founded.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, believed that no Pope could fall into heresy, nor teach heresy at all. See this book by Cardinal Manning:
tinyurl.com/ouedzov
Bellarmine condemned the idea that the Pope could ever be a heretic or teach heresy. He also believed it probable that the Pope “cannot in any way be heretical, or publicly teach heresy”.

 

[dmar198]

This topic came up as an aside in another thread. I’m offering the topic for general discussion in its own thread.

My position is that no Pope can ever teach heresy, nor fall into the sins of apostasy or heresy or schism.

This is an interesting thread, and I’d like to clarify something. Are you familiar with the distinction that some theologians have made between “material heretics” and “formal heretics”? Some of your comments indicate that you are talking about formal heretics, and I suppose that it is possible for a pope to be a material heretic. What do you think? Or do your comments apply to material heretics too and I just missed it?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Pope Honorius was what is called a “heretic before the fact.” That means he believed heresy (namely the Monothelite heresy) before it was determined to be heresy. He believed (but did not teach) something that would later be defined as heresy.

FWIW, St. Cyprian of Carthage (my favorite Early Church Father) was a heretic before the fact in his denial of the validity of Christian Baptism at the hands of heretics (he saw a defect of minister which does not exist).

But Honorius was not just an “ordinary” Saint - he was also a POPE. And he was a heretic before the fact.

He was not ONLY condemned (posthumously, and thus rather pointlessly) as a heretic by Pope Leo-2, but also by the (Ecumenical) Third Council of Constantinople:

…to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations

…we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!

[Third Council of Constantinople, Session 8 & 9]

So, yes, the Catholic Church has had, at least, Pope who believed heresy (before the fact). Not just an overtly sinful Pope (we’ve had LOTS of those), but a heretical Pope.

But this is the REALLY, REALLY important part: the Church does not teach that Papal infallibility means that a Pope cannot BE a heretic. It means that the Pope cannot TEACH heresy (in his capacity as Pope).

WHAT was the evidence that Constantinople-3 cited to prove his heresy? I have quoted it, but I will quote it again:

because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

This was a private letter (which Honorius clearly never intended to become public record) of one theologian to another, discussing a theological point of contention (and that’s what theologians do). This does not, in any way, constitute teaching with the authority of the Papal Office.

Popes can be (and have been) sinners. Popes can be (and have been) heretics. Popes CANNOT teach their sin or heresy as Catholic Doctrine. And none ever have.

 

[dmar198]

Pope Honorius was what is called a “heretic before the fact.” That means he believed heresy (namely the Monothelite heresy) before it was determined to be heresy. He believed (but did not teach) something that would later be defined as heresy.

FWIW, St. Cyprian of Carthage (my favorite Early Church Father) was a heretic before the fact in his denial of the validity of Christian Baptism at the hands of heretics (he saw a defect of minister which does not exist).

But Honorius was not just an “ordinary” Saint - he was also a POPE. And he was a heretic before the fact.

He was not ONLY condemned (posthumously, and thus rather pointlessly) as a heretic by Pope Leo-2, but also by the (Ecumenical) Third Council of Constantinople:

So, yes, the Catholic Church has had, at least, Pope who believed heresy (before the fact). Not just an overtly sinful Pope (we’ve had LOTS of those), but a heretical Pope.

But this is the REALLY, REALLY important part: the Church does not teach that Papal infallibility means that a Pope cannot BE a heretic. It means that the Pope cannot TEACH heresy (in his capacity as Pope).

WHAT was the evidence that Constantinople-3 cited to prove his heresy? I have quoted it, but I will quote it again:

This was a private letter (which Honorius clearly never intended to become public record) of one theologian to another, discussing a theological point of contention (and that’s what theologians do). This does not, in any way, constitute teaching with the authority of the Papal Office.

Popes can be (and have been) sinners. Popes can be (and have been) heretics. Popes CANNOT teach their sin or heresy as Catholic Doctrine. And none ever have.

I hope that what I’m about to say helps clarify things and doesn’t muddle them. I’m confident that David is aware of this, because he is very knowledgeable, and I would like his opinion on it:

It seems to me that many Catholic theologians have interpreted Constantinople 3’s condemnation of Honorius in a way that leaves room for Honorius’ orthodoxy. The Catholic Encyclopedia takes David’s view, that Honorius was unorthodox, but it mentions three theologians, Pennacchi, Grisar, and Hefele as taking another view: that the Council’s ground of condemnation of Honorius was clarified or even modified by Leo II when he ratified the Council. Allegedly, he would not ratify a condemnation of Honorius on the ground of unorthodoxy, but only on the ground of negligence: Honorius did not stamp out the heresy as he should have, but urged silence.

Therefore, unless I’ve misunderstood something, it is not necessary to believe that Honorius was unorthodox in his belief.

Argh, those long sentences, with all those subordinate clauses. Who could follow them?

 

[Augustine]

A pope certainly can commit heresy. Pope John XXII held the heretical belief that the holy souls in Heaven would not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the resurrection (akin to Jehovah Witnesses). However, he never formally taught it. Yet, it was such an embarrassment that his successor, Benedict XII, as one of his first acts in office, was to promulgate the true belief as dogmatic.

So it seems to me that it’s not so much the person of the pope who’s protected from error, but his teaching office and, consequently, the Church.

Perhaps it’d be easier that a pope would fall mortally ill before he could utter a heresy before the universal Church. Our Lord really meant it that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.

Pax Christi

 

[Tim_D]

A pope certainly can commit heresy. Pope John XXII held the heretical belief that the holy souls in Heaven would not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the resurrection (akin to Jehovah Witnesses).

Was this Pope John XXII or Pope John XXIII? I’ve always thought it was John XXIII. I seem to remember that while he was on his deathbed various priest and religious officials pleaded with him to renounce his position, which he ultimately did.

 

[Ron_Conte]

This is an interesting thread, and I’d like to clarify something. Are you familiar with the distinction that some theologians have made between “material heretics” and “formal heretics”? Some of your comments indicate that you are talking about formal heretics, and I suppose that it is possible for a pope to be a material heretic. What do you think? Or do your comments apply to material heretics too and I just missed it?

Material heresy is an idea that is in fact a heresy – contrary to an infallible teaching of the Magisterium. A person is not a “material heretic”, but a person might adhere to material heresy. If he does so knowingly, he commits formal heresy, a grave sin. If he does so unknowingly, he is not guilty of formal heresy. Perhaps he is guilty of negligence in learning the faith. Only formal heresy carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

My understanding is that the teaching of the Magisterium, whether infallible or non-infallible, can never contain material heresy. My opinion is that no Pope can teach or adhere to material heresy, nor can any Pope commit formal heresy, neither publicly nor privately. The gift of truth and of a never-failing faith excludes these possibilities.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Was this Pope John XXII or Pope John XXIII? I’ve always thought it was John XXIII. I seem to remember that while he was on his deathbed various priest and religious officials pleaded with him to renounce his position, which he ultimately did.

It was John 22, not 23. And he asserted this view as a mere opinion. He permitted priests and theologians to publicly disagree. It was not an act of the Magisterium. Later, Pope Benedict 12 infallibly taught the contrary view, that the beatific vision is granted as soon as one enters heaven, prior to the resurrection.

David, asserting an incorrect idea, before the Magisterium teaches infallibly on the subject, is not heresy of any kind. St. Thomas had the incorrect view on the Immaculate Conception, which view today would be heresy. But until the Magisterium decides any question, even the Pope is free to hold any opinion.

Pope Honorius I was not guilty of heresy, as this article explains:
newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
If the Council excommunicated him, they erred. A subsequent Pope gave the correct sentence, that Honorius was guilty of not doing enough against the heresy of one will.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Some commentators are asserting that a Pope can commit heresy. But they do not explain how such a position fits with the teaching of Vatican I, which I quote above. Also, they don’t explain how the Church can be indefectible if Her Head is a heretic, or teaches heresy.

 

[Augustine]

… since he is its Head and the Rock on which it is founded.

The pope is not the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ is and the pope is His vicar on earth.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

David, asserting an incorrect idea, before the Magisterium teaches infallibly on the subject, is not heresy of any kind. St. Thomas had the incorrect view on the Immaculate Conception, which view today would be heresy. But until the Magisterium decides any question, even the Pope is free to hold any opinion.

This is not so. Arius was a heresiarch before the Council of Nicea took place. Arianism was a heresy before, during and after the council. To bind the Truth to a legalistic interpretation is itself akin to heresy.

Pax Christi

 

[Ron_Conte]

This is not so. Arius was a heresiarch before the Council of Nicea took place. Arianism was a heresy before, during and after the council. To bind the Truth to a legalistic interpretation is itself akin to heresy.

Pax Christi

Arianism was a heresy because it contradicted the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. There is no heresy before the fact, meaning a heresy before the Magisterium has definitively decided a theological question. When a question is open, the faithful may discuss and hold any view. When the Magisterium decides, then we must believe.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This topic came up as an aside in another thread. I’m offering the topic for general discussion in its own thread.

My position is that no Pope can ever teach heresy, nor fall into the sins of apostasy or heresy or schism.

The dogma that the Church is indefectible implies that Her head must also be indefectible. A Church with a corrupt head cannot be said to be indefectible. The Pope is the captain and pilot of the Ark of Salvation. If the Pope has gone astray, the ship he guides will also go astray. So the indefectibility of the Church implies an indefectible Pope.

The First Vatican Council taught that the faith of each successor of Peter has the gift from God of truth and of a faith that can never fail. But if a Pope teaches heresy, he does not have the gift of truth. Or if he falls into apostasy, heresy, or schism, his faith has failed. So we are left with the necessary conclusion that no Pope can teach heresy, nor fall into the sins of apostasy or heresy or schism.

“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine.”

Your problem arises only because a Council affirmed the indefectibility of the Papacy.
For that statement to be true the issue devolves back to the indefectibility of a Council surely?

How do we cast-iron confirm the indefectibility of a Council?
If that cannot be solidly demonstrated then there is no problem.

How does Scripture, whose correct interpretation ultimately depends on the Magisterium,
be called upon to supply indefectibility to a Council?

I don’t know, seems circular to me but what do I know.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Your problem arises only because a Council affirmed the indefectibility of the Papacy.
For that statement to be true the issue devolves back to the indefectibility of a Council surely?

How do we cast-iron confirm the indefectibility of a Council?
If that cannot be solidly demonstrated then there is no problem.

How does Scripture, whose correct interpretation ultimately depends on the Magisterium,
be called upon to supply indefectibility to a Council?

I don’t know, seems circular to me but what do I know.

The validity of an Ecumenical Council is based on dogmatic fact. The ordinary and universal Magisterium confirms that each of the 21 general Councils are valid and have the full authority of the Church. Councils are indefectible because the Pope and the body of Bishops, which is what constitutes a Council, are indefectible. If an Ecumenical Council went astray, then the Church would not be indefectible.

 

[Church_Militant]

CA covers this question well. I’m surprised no one else has thought to search for it.

• Has the doctrine of papal infallibility been infallibly defined?
• In what sense is the Pope Infallible?
• How can corrupt Church leaders be infallible?
• Can a pope be a heretic?
• Is Catholicism true if the Church has had immoral popes?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The validity of an Ecumenical Council is based on dogmatic fact. The ordinary and universal Magisterium confirms that each of the 21 general Councils are valid and have the full authority of the Church. Councils are indefectible because the Pope and the body of Bishops, which is what constitutes a Council, are indefectible. If an Ecumenical Council went astray, then the Church would not be indefectible.

Ron this is just a logical theoretical point I am extrapolating from your starting point.

If you are willing to consider the possibility that a Pope can proclaim something that calls into question his alleged indefectibility… why may we not take the discussion back to the alleged proclaiming authority that makes us believe he is indefectible in the first place?

Also, if your proposition allows us to wonder if we have a valid Pope, why not wonder if the Council that proclaimed Papal Indefectibility did so validly or wasn’t a valid Council for some reason.

I know of no practical grounds to impugn that Council… but then it seems equally churlish to question the validity of a long unquestioned validly elected Pope… just because some might believe he is recently heretical.