Papal Heresy and the Infallible Faith of Peter and His Successors

  • Thread starter Thread starter ioannes_pius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ioannes_pius

Guest
Christ is born!

I’ve had this question on my mind a lot lately.

In the Gospel of Luke, we find the following passage: “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Luke 22: 31-32, Douay Rheims)

Cornelius à Lapide explains this passage in his commentary:
“Another and a certain privilege was common to Peter with all his successors, that he and all the other bishops of Rome (for Peter, as Christ willed, founded and confirmed the Pontifical Church at Rome), should never openly fall from this faith, so as to teach the Church heresy, or any error, contrary to the faith. So S. Leo (serm. xxii.), on Natalis of SS. Peter and Paul; S. Cyprian (Lib. i. Ephesians 3), to Cornelius; Lucius I., Felix I., Agatho, Nicolas I., Leo IX., Innocent III., Bernard and others, whom Bellarmine cites and follows (Lib. i. de Pontif. Roman).” (My emphasis. I will simply provide a link to the commentary here: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/clc/luke-22.html)
Click to expand...
More significantly, the First Vatican Council taught the following: “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. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.” (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus n. 7, 1870, my emphasis.)

Cardinal Manning explains this point in a pastoral letter:
“The interpretation by the Fathers of the words ‘On this rock,’ etc. is fourfold, but all four interpretations are not more than four aspects of one and the same truth, and all are necessary to complete its full meaning. They all implicitly or explicitly contain the perpetual stability of Peter’s faith….”

“In these two promises [i.e. Lk 22:32, Mt 16:18] a divine assistance is pledged to Peter and to his successors, and that divine assistance is promised to secure the stability and indefectibility of the Faith in the supreme Doctor and Head of the Church, for the general good of the Church itself.” (Cardinal Manning, “The Vatican Council and its Definitions: a Pastoral Letter to the Clergy”, p. 83-84, my emphasis.)
Click to expand...
Now, many theologians in the past have taught that, if a Pope were to fall into heresy, he would cease to be Pope by that very fact. But given the teaching of Vatican I, are we even permitted to believe that a Pope could fall into heresy, and thereby lose his office, at all? It seems to me that we are not.

All insights welcome and appreciated.

Merry Christmas to all of you!
 
“ioannes_pius said:
Now, many theologians in the past have taught that, if a Pope were to fall into heresy, he would cease to be Pope by that very fact.
*
Click to expand...
*

This is very confusing to me…do the Cardinals have a responsibility to speak out in such an instance, the bishops, or can even the average Catholic hold forth an opinion on the subject.? What, exactly ,is to be done?
 
I’m not totally certain myself (which is why I left that statement somewhat ambiguous), because I haven’t read many works of theologians in depth on the matter. However, I do know that theologians in the past have answered your question in different ways, so there isn’t really a “right” answer. At least, there wasn’t.
 
Which ones? and did they say so before or after the promulgation of Pastor Æternus at Vatican I?
 
It’s well known…

Can a pope say or do anything which does not fall into the category of “infallible”?

_
 
From the article Bishop Athanasius Schneider: On the Question of a Heretical Pope:

There is no historical case of a pope losing the papacy during his term of office due to heresy or alleged heresy. Pope Honorius I (625 – 638) was posthumously excommunicated by three Ecumenical Councils (the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870) on the grounds that he supported the heretical doctrine of those who promoted Monotheletism, thereby helping to spread this heresy. In the letter with which Pope Saint Leo II (+ 682 – 683) confirmed the decrees of the Third Council of Constantinople, he declared the anathema on Pope Honorius (“anathematizamus Honorium”), stating that his predecessor “Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563) (bold emphasis mine)

Some may say that he is not a heretic, he only did nothing to prevent heresy (even though Honorius was excommunicated by 3 ecumenical councils).

ZP
 
That is a possible opinion, but it has always been a minority one overall. I can see how Pastor Aeternus can be read that way, but it was certainly not the understanding given to the Council Fathers. Here is a good read on that:

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I

After Vatican I, both opinions were permitted, but the one that the Pope could defect from the Church through heresy was still considered the common (communior) opinion.

The Wernz-Vidal commentary on the 1917 code of canon law, in the commnetary on the canon that the first see is judged by no one, published through the 1960s, lists five opinions, giving the fifth as most common:
  1. A Pope cannot personally fall into heresy
  2. A Pope who is even secretly a heretic is deprived of the papacy
  3. A Pope can fall into public heresy, but would remain Pope and could not be removed
  4. A Pope can fall into public heresy, but would not automatically be deprived of the papacy without a declaratory sentence
  5. A Pope who is a public heretic is automatically deprived of the office. A declaratory sentence would be strictly a declaration of that fact.
Again, the fifth was described as the most common.

I’m not sure what commentaries on the 1983 Code say, especially in light of §2 of the following :
Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
Click to expand...
Just to add, this is an interesting read on the pre-Vatican I treatment of this topic:

Papal Immunity and Liability in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
There is no historical case of a pope losing the papacy during his term of office due to heresy or alleged heresy.
Click to expand...
OK… Yet … That does not ‘prove’ that a pope cannot be involved in heresy…
 
Did you not read the rest of my quote:
ziapueblo said:
Pope Honorius I (625 – 638) was posthumously excommunicated by three Ecumenical Councils (the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870) on the grounds that he supported the heretical doctrine of those who promoted Monotheletism, thereby helping to spread this heresy . In the letter with which Pope Saint Leo II (+ 682 – 683) confirmed the decrees of the Third Council of Constantinople, he declared the anathema on Pope Honorius (“ anathematizamus Honorium ”), stating that his predecessor “Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563) (bold emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
ZP
 
EndTimes said:
Yet that too does not equate to a pope in some manner (aka not that which connects with infallibility) being therefore incapable of connecting in some manners to heresy ?
Click to expand...
Absolutely no clue what you have just said.
 
thistle said:
A Pope can only be removed by death or resignation.
Click to expand...
Yet that too does not equate to a pope in some manner (aka not that which connects with infallibility) being therefore incapable of connecting in some manners to heresy ?
 
MasterHaster said:
Why not? God is omnipotent. He made appearances in the O.T. and through Jesus in the NT. He could certainly appear and give whatever order He chooses. Do you dispute this? He is the head of the Church.
Click to expand...
He could also appear and cure everyone who has cancer and every bad thing in the entire planet!!!
 
thistle said:
Yet that too does not equate to a pope in some manner (aka not that which connects with infallibility) being therefore incapable of connecting in some manners to heresy ?
Click to expand...
Apparently to some…
thistle said:
Absolutely no clue what you have just said.
Click to expand...
Yes… You’ve indicated that you did not grasp what I’d said.

“thistle” said:
> A Pope can only be removed by death or resignation.
Click to expand...

OK. Any source to that - not that I disagree.

Is this current pope connected to heresy?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top