I have a controversial question

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

WanderingCathol

Guest
Can a pope be a personal heretic and still be pope? What does catholic tradition say about this scenario.
 
Tyler Smedley:
What do you mean about personal heritic?
That he believes things that are heretical. For example, lets say that he becomes an iconoclast.
 
The answer is yes; a pope can be a heretic.

Sedecvacantists deny this, and so they claim there hasn’t been a true Pope since Pius XII.

For an excellent refutation, albeit from a schismatic Feenyite, go here.
 
My conviction is that if a person with heretical views were elected pope, the Holy Spirit would prevent him from teaching them as doctrine. I believe this happened once in the history of the papacy but I don’t remember the details.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
The answer is yes; a pope can be a heretic.

kuriyu
 
Claire from DE:
My conviction is that if a person with heretical views were elected pope, the Holy Spirit would prevent him from teaching them as doctrine. I believe this happened once in the history of the papacy but I don’t remember the details.
Don’t worry, you could always say that it was not infallible. but just his personal opinion. 😃
 
A Pope can be an occult heretic and still be Pope. It is an open question as to whether a Pope can be a public, notorius heretic and still be Pope. Since it is theoretically possible for a Pope to fall into public, notorius, and personal heresy without trying to bind the Church to an heretical teaching, the dogma of Papal Infallibility is not contradicted in this case.

The theological manuals taught the possibility of a Pope falling from the chair as a result of heresy well into the XXth century. This speculation even found its way into the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (the exact reference escapes me).
 
Claire from DE:
My conviction is that if a person with heretical views were elected pope, the Holy Spirit would prevent him from teaching them as doctrine. I believe this happened once in the history of the papacy but I don’t remember the details.
Indeed Claire. It happened with Pope Vigilius in the sixth century
newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
He attained to the papacy probably though shifty methods, with the help of the empress Theodora, who wanted Vigilius to espouse the heresy of monophysitism from Peter’s chair. However, once he ascended to the papacy he upheld orthodoxy.
 
40.png
dcs:
…The theological manuals taught the possibility of a Pope falling from the chair as a result of heresy well into the XXth century. This speculation even found its way into the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (the exact reference escapes me).
CAN A COUNCIL DEPOSE THE POPE?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

General Councils, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV, Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company
 
Adam D:
Indeed Claire. It happened with Pope Vigilius in the sixth century
newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
He attained to the papacy probably though shifty methods, with the help of the empress Theodora, who wanted Vigilius to espouse the heresy of monophysitism from Peter’s chair. However, once he ascended to the papacy he upheld orthodoxy.
I don’t see the connection. It would be one thing that he believed in monophysite heresy and taught orthdoxy another that he took advantage of the circumstances to become pope.

Your example is just that of a man who took the opportunity given to him. But Honorious was a totally different matter.
 
Matt16_18 said:
CAN A COUNCIL DEPOSE THE POPE?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

General Councils, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV, Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company

What about Pope honorius who was condemn as a heretic.
 
Pope Honorius did not propound heresy. nor was he condemned for teaching heresy, but for permitting it, and that in large part because the letter sent to him by Sergius of Constantinople (seeking sanction for holding the heresy of monothelitism) was quite shifty and deceptive in its intent and wording.
See Joe Gallegos’s defense of Honorius here
cin.org/users/jgallegos/pv_honor.htm
Also, for a pretty good summary of the many complicating factors surrounding the events of his condemnation see here
catholicity.elcore.net/ButlerOnCaseOfPopeHonorius.html
Did you have Honorius in mind when you started this thread?
 
Adam D:
Pope Honorius did not propound heresy. nor was he condemned for teaching heresy, but for permitting it, and that in large part because the letter sent to him by Sergius of Constantinople (seeking sanction for holding the heresy of monothelitism) was quite shifty and deceptive in its intent and wording.
See Joe Gallegos’s defense of Honorius here
cin.org/users/jgallegos/pv_honor.htm
Also, for a pretty good summary of the many complicating factors surrounding the events of his condemnation see here
catholicity.elcore.net/ButlerOnCaseOfPopeHonorius.html
Did you have Honorius in mind when you started this thread?
Sure now put the blame on someone else. The letter was not clear it was shifty and deceptive :rolleyes:

He was condemned as a heretic by an eastern council. and if he permited the heresy then he is just as guilty of heresy.
 
40.png
Wandering:
He was condemned as a heretic by an eastern council. and if he permited the heresy then he is just as guilty of heresy.
Out of curiosity, where do you think you might wander to? Protestantism is rife with heresy.
 
40.png
SPH1:
Out of curiosity, where do you think you might wander to? Protestantism is rife with heresy.
There are some sects of protestanism that are more orthodox than your modernist church. But I am a loyal son of the catholic church no matter even if she is a faifull follwer of modernism. 😃

You should examine your modernist church and return to the historic faith. It needs to get back on track.
 
40.png
WanderingCathol:
Can a pope be a personal heretic and still be pope? What does catholic tradition say about this scenario.
Well, it’s not really a controversial question. The Pope cannot be a heretic-- personal or otherwise-- and remain Pope. Period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top