If a Pope was a Heretic Question

[sealabeag]

I asked a similar question recently but this is slightly different.
I read online earlier that if someone elected Pope held a secret heresy in his heart, privately but not publicly, at the time of his election, that he would not be a valid Pope due to that private heresy.
The site I read this on was a dubious site, so I don’t know whether this statement is true or not.

Disclaimer: This is just a general question regarding Church law on this issue - I’m in no way speculating on the views or state of soul of any Pope, alive or dead.

 

[poche]

From the Code of Canon Law;

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM

Who would have the legal competency to sit in judgement of him?

 

[pnewton]

That ends the discussion, except for the hypothetical and the schismatic. Some things you simply have to have faith in God for.

 

[sealabeag]

I don’t think this actually answers my question, but thank you.

 

[ioannes_pius]

That is incorrect. That would be occult heresy, and occult heresy does sever one’s external bonds of unity with the Church.

 

[sealabeag]

Great thanks for your answer. I knew that site was unreliable. Where are you taking that information from? Not that I think you’re wrong I’m just wondering how people know these things.

 

[Genesis315]

I mean, just think of it logically. If this were true, we could never really know if any putative Pope were a Pope. Any Pope professing the Catholic faith, could secretly be denying it in his heart and no one would know. In fact, we could never identify any member of the Church–the Church itself–if such a principle held. This is basically the Protestant concept of the invisible Church.

And belonging to the Church is necessary for salvation–it therefore needs to be identifiable. And in fact, the Roman Pontiff is himself a special identifier.

The Church “is an entity with visible delineation” (Lumen Gentium 8) and “[t]he bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion” (Lumen Gentium 14). And the Pope himself is the Church’s “visible head” (Lumen Gentium 18) and “visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium 23).

 

[goout]

What is the productive point of your question? What do you hope to accomplish or clarify?

 

[Beryllos]

… that he would not be a valid Pope due to that…

Then what does it mean to not be valid? We know that an ordinary parish priest who has mortally sinned can still celebrate the Mass and administer the sacraments (here is one reference). I assume therefore that when a pope does the things that a pope normally does, those acts are valid even if he is in a state of mortal sin for any reason.

I am not citing Church law here, but only brainstorming, that is, suggesting an understanding that may or may not be relevant to the original question.

 

[sealabeag]

Well, as you will see if you read my OP, I read something online, the veracity of which I was uncertain. I therefore came here to the forums to clarify the situation, so I would not be confused. Thank you for your question and God bless.

 

[sealabeag]

Thanks for the reply, yeah you’re definitely right - unless something is expressed publicly nobody can know and therefore judge their heresy. The accusation on the website was that if someone is a (private) heretic they could not be validly elected Pope. They were clearly wrong. Maybe they confused public and private. Now that you’re here though one other question - what if a Cardinal were a public heretic (and I know there is a very specific legal definition for that term) - would that rule them out from election to the Papacy? What degree of dissent from Church teaching would rule one out? For example, if a Cardinal disagreed, publicly, with church teaching on some sexual issue, say, the sinfulness of homosexuality?

 

[Genesis315]

The usual issue is measuring obstinacy. That’s pretty easy for everyone other than the Pope since it is manifested in resistance against authority. So I would imagine such a Cardinal who manifested such resistance against the repeated corrections of the Pope would be excommunicated accordingly. This is especially true since the current code requires a declaration from the competent authority before one is removed from office.

Papal election law for a long time (well before Vatican II) has permitted an excommunicated person to be elected, just so there is nothing that can throw doubt on said election. The law as stated in Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (which has been included in subsequent revisions to today) states:

“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."

“Active election” means voting and “passive election” means getting elected.

And if a Cardinal had straight up defected from the Church, then the Church would not elect or recognize such a person as head, even if it took divine assistance. I have posted on this at length elsewhere.

 

[sealabeag]

Ok I’m very surprised by this but thanks for enlightening me! I actually had to re-read

Papal election law for a long time (well before Vatican II) has permitted an excommunicated person to be elected,

several times because I was sure you made a mistake and meant “prohibited” not “permitted”! So, long story short, a heretic or excommunicated cardinal can be elected Pope, validly?
Appreciate your replies btw, they are genuinely knowledgable and insightful.

 

[Genesis315]

Glad to be of some help!

a heretic or excommunicated cardinal can be elected Pope, validly?

Yes, although it is highly unlikely (likely even impossible by divine assistance if the person were actually not a member of the Church at all). The whole reason for this law is so no one is guessing if there is some reason the election might be invalid (say, a Cardinal may have secretly procured an abortion for his mistress and been automatically excommunicated with no one knowing) which ties back to the original point. The law takes any reasons for doubt off the table completely.

I’ve post this before, but on top of all that the validity of a Pope is a dogmatic fact (cf. CDF, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profesio Fidei 11). The reasoning for this is explained well below:

Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.

 

[ReaderT]

And belonging to the Church is necessary for salvation–it therefore needs to be identifiable. And in fact, the Roman Pontiff is himself a special identifier.

Just curious then: what does the Roman church think of the Pope who was definitively ruled to be a heretic and anathematized (Pope Honorius I) ?

 

[Genesis315]

Yet, his papacy was considered valid and uncontested at the time and never retroactively considered invalid. It was only after the fact that he was condemned. He was a visible member of the Church the whole time regardless of any errors that later came to public knowledge.

In any event, there is no evidence he was an obstinate heretic (the concilliar rebuke came after his death) and unclear if he was even a heretic at all.

There’s a good argument he was personally orthodox, but allowed or promoted ambiguous formulae that could be accepted by heretics to try and reach a compromise for peace. Either way, he was rightfully condemned with those who were responsible for its spread.

In any event, this is a perfect example of the principle we are talking about: private error does not necessarily affect public, visible, membership.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Ultimately he wasn’t ruled a heretic. He was found to have been lax in keeping heresy in check.

 

[ReaderT]

Thank you for your response; I just have two follow-up questions:

In any event, this is a perfect example of the principle we are talking about: private error does not necessarily affect public, visible, membership.

In your opinion, how can it be otherwise - if one is a heretic (whether it’s known or not), then one has cut himself off from Christ; how, then, can his membership still be valid?

but he allowed or promoted ambiguous formulae that could be accepted by heretics

Ah… What, then, do you think of the troubling statements coming from the current Pope, such as “diversity of religions is willed by God”?

Ultimately he wasn’t ruled a heretic.

I think the exact words of the Council clearly condemn him as a heretic:

“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!”
(Session XVI)

Also, this bit here:

“But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose—namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome, Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen — and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind, of the impious Apollinarius, Severus and Themistius, and one intent on removing the perfection of the becoming man of the same one lord Jesus Christ our God, through a certain guileful device, leading from there to the blasphemous conclusion that his rationally animate flesh is without a will and a principle of action…”

 

[Genesis315]

As for your first question, ultimately the interior disposition is left to the judgment of God since we cannot judge what we do not see. That interior disposition needs to be manifested in some definitive, public way for it to have public consequences obviously. How does it work in the EO Churches? To determine who is a canonical, orthodox bishop, do you go by their outward profession or their interior disposition unknown to the faithful? I don’t see how the latter would even be workable.

We acknowledge those in mortal sin can still be members for example. Even with heresy , obstinacy against the authority of the Church must be demonstrated before one is considered strictly outside (no one would say being accidentally wrong is a sin). This seems Biblical: “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”; see also Titus 3:10.

second question in next post

 

[Genesis315]

As for the second question, Honorius is neither the first, nor the last Pope to cause problems with troubling or ambiguous statements (or even flat out wrong ones). What’s noteworthy is that St. Agatho, while consenting to the condemnation of his predecessor, Honorius, could also say the following without opposition–and in fact, with the praise of the Council:

“… because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred;[…]which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.”

CHURCH FATHERS: Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681)

Point being that even Roman Pontiffs can say or do things that do not touch on the public profession of faith of the Roman Church, which remains undefiled until the end. I don’t expect Popes to personally condemn their dead predecessors much anymore (or really anyone dead), but rather more likely issue the corrective more generally if needed (ie Benedict XII’s dogmatic constitution Benedictus Deus, which was necessitated by John XXII’s personal errors, but doesn’t mention him by name).