Heresy in the Roman Church

[YoungApologist3]

I think a lot of people are missing something: I’m not referring to the entity known as “the Catholic Church.” I’m referring to the entity within the Catholic Church which is commonly called by Catholics “Rome,” “the Vatican,” or “the Roman church.” Is it possible for that entity to fall into heresy?

In other words, is it possible for the Roman church to cease to be Catholic by falling into heresy?

 

[Spyridon]

Huh? Where is this coming from? Citation?

It’s well known that the Eastern Churches were overrun by heresy multiple times in the first Christian millenium…

There were multiple Patriarchs who fell to heresy.

Miraculously, Rome never fell.

 

[Cruciferi]

Shakers - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Shakers will judge us! All two of em’!

 

[AugustTherese]

Shakers - Wikipedia

The Shakers will judge us! All two of em’!

Haha. Shaking Quakers has a nice ring to it.

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[twf]

The Church teaches that the Pope can’t BIND the Church to heresy… that’s the protection of papal infallibility. That doesn’t mean that the Pope can’t personally hold heretical beliefs. Pope Honorius was condemned by his successor and a council. John XXII held heretical views on the beatific vision which he ultimately recanted.

 

[Eddie18]

There are many quotes throughout the history of the Catholic Church that state that a pope can become a heretic. Here’s one quote from a book found in Google books from around 1900 that mentions a discussion that was had among the Church Fathers at the First Vatican Council where they confirmed it is possible for a Pope to become a heretic and what would happen if that came to be:

“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.” Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago

 

[Leferdion]

Strange…I cant find one of my posts from yesterday Did I delete it? was it deleted by CAF moderators? did I even write it? Was it all made up in my mind? Am I losing my mind? (LeFerdion laughs hysterically).

 

[Rob2]

There are many quotes throughout the history of the Catholic Church that state that a pope can become a heretic. Here’s one quote from a book found in Google books

There can be many quotes and bits from Google books about whether a pope can become a heretic , but these quotes and bits from Google books , are they Magisterial pronouncements ? I think not .

 

[Carmel]

the dogma of infallibility of the Church guarantees that the Church cannot fall into heresy.

the dogma is ’ the infallibility of the Pope ’
There’s material heresy and theres formal heresy. The Church could be labouring in a situation of material heresy, for example if the Pope made a 'off the cuff ’ comment which could cause some confusion among the faithful. If there are pronouncements, encyclicals
of a more formal nature, I believe that would then be formal heresy which is more serious.
I’m pretty sure that in the past some Popes have made doctrinal mistakes and been steered back to orthodoxy by the hierarchy. But, if a Pope refused to take correction that would be a problem.

 

[Carmel]

The Catholic Church fall into heresy? Who would anathematize us? The EO? Lutherans? Quakers?

The True Church cannot fall into heresy. The Church is comprised of saints and sinners - all of whom will be judged at the appointed time.

 

[Eddie18]

There are many quotes on the subject stating that a pope may become a heretic, including quotes from other popes. They don’t need to be magisterial pronouncements for Catholics to believe them.

 

[Eddie18]

There are two different dogmas we are referring to here: the dogma of “infallibility of the Church” and the dogma of “infallibility of the Pope”. They are two different dogmas (though related) and are listed separately in Catholic books.

 

[Rob2]

There are many quotes on the subject stating that a pope may become a heretic, including quotes from other popes. They don’t need to be magisterial pronouncements for Catholics to believe them.

I know , but on such a subject it would help if they were Magisterial pronouncements .

 

[Carmel]

. They are two different dogmas (though related) and are listed separately in Catholic books.

So , every contingency is covered .

 

[dochawk]

The great schism in 1054.

Schism and heresy are separate issues.

In fact, to teach that the Orthodox are heretical, whether today or in 1054, is in direct contradiction of the teaching of the RCC.

Edit: I know that many Byzantines are presently in communion with Rome. However, they weren’t always. It is commonly thought that the only Eastern church that has never fallen into heresy is the Maronite church (I think that’s the right one…)

So you’re saying that the Greco-Italo church in Italy, whose bishops are appointed from the Vatican, has been in heresy? While being tiny, surrounded by, and in full communion with the RCC?

You need to get the two separate concepts clear before making these incorrect pronouncements.

Further, note that many of the byzantines (e.g., Ukrainian and Ruthenian) were separated, but never broke Communion with Rome from their own side.)

Communion occurs because the newly ascend head of a church seeks communion with his fellow heads. If there’s no communication between the regions this just doesn’t happen.

Note that no changes or concessions were required of the Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and Melkites (and probably others) when these churches and Rome re-established communion.

hawk

 

[Spyridon]

In fact, to teach that the Orthodox are heretical, whether today or in 1054, is in direct contradiction of the teaching of the RCC.

The Orthodox Churches are not heretical as a whole, but on an individual level many Orthodox are material heretics.

All Orthodox are material schismatics to begin with - some are also material heretics.

For example: the Orthodox who not only don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory, but who are that those doctrines are heretical - those Orthodox are themselves heretics.

An Eastern Christian does not have to express the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory in Roman terms - but the concepts themselves have to be accepted as orthodox theology, which as you know is how Eastern Catholics view them. The Orthodox who go further than this and say they are heretical, are in fact material heretics themselves for saying that.

 

[dochawk]

For example: the Orthodox who not only don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception

If you can find a single Orthodox anywhere that believes Mary was born with inherited guilt or otherwise impure in any way, I’ll be impressed.

The Orthodox objection to the IC is not over it’s content, but because

1. one church unilaterally purported to pronounce dogma, and
2. it is utterly unnecessary, as the lack of stain is obviously the case.

or Purgatory, but who are that those doctrines are heretical - those Orthodox are themselves heretics.

As a group, Orthodox do not reject the notion of Purgatory, but find the specific form of cleansing to be speculative.

An Eastern Christian does not have to express the Immaculate Conception or Purgatory in Roman terms - but the concepts themselves have to be accepted as orthodox theology, which as you know is how Eastern Catholics view them. The Orthodox who go further than this and say they are heretical, are in fact material heretics themselves for saying that.

The concepts are not inconsistent in any manner with Orthodoxy, no matter how many times western apologists make such claims.

To find fault in another church unilaterally propounding dogma is not, in itself, material heresy.

hawk

 

[Spyridon]

you can find a single Orthodox anywhere that believes Mary was born with inherited guilt or otherwise impure in any way, I’ll be impressed

I’ve personally seen Orthodox who say the IC is heretical…

That in itself is a heretical statement.

I stand by my assertion: all Orthodox are material schismatics, and there are quite a few who are also material heretics.

I’ve seen many “Orthodox” who love to degrade the “Western schismatic heretics.”

In truth, it is they who are schismatic, and if they say we are heretical they’re probably a heretic themself.

 

[Edward_H]

I had an insight given in my own prayer the other day about his topic.

I decided that all this uproar and division that has occurred on Pope Francis’s watch and all the press and blogs and angst about it, has become sort of a form of “Catholic porn”…addictive, divisive, giving some people a certain awful satisfaction by reading about and talking about it.

We need to take the virtue and practices of purity and chastity and apply it to our reading habits.