A
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And your point is?
T
Tonks40
Guest
The article makes sense to me. One of the functions of the Holy Father is to affirm the teachings of the Church. That doesn’t mean that with the authority given to him as the See of Peter that he will never go wrong in teaching matters of faith and morals. The benefits of a church with a long history of teachings that go back to Christ is having the ability to come to a fuller understanding of the faith which is supported by the Magisterium and Scripture. We have a good system of balance in the Church…one cannot over rule the other and teach error unchecked.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
Judging by the thread title I think he was shocked by the fact that the Pope could be indeed a heretic.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Not just “a” heretic, but a “public” heretic.
Of course, at the moment just before he becomes a public heretic, he’s no longer Pope. (Unless Vatican One somehow addresses this issue?)
G
Ghosty
Guest
Pupblic heresy isn’t a problem either, even according to Vatican I. The only way public Papal heresy would be a problem is if the Pope tried to bind the Church with heretical teaching, saying that his professed heresy is the Truth and binding on the Faithful.
Professing heresy, even publically, is a simply a sin, and no Catholic teaching guards the Pope against sin.
Peace and God bless!
P
Peter_J
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
According to St. Robert Bellarmin, a heretical “pope” is actually a heretical ex-pope. So doesn’t it follow that he can’t bind the Church on anything?
G
Ghosty
Guest
That’s certainly one option. There’s no “official” answer on the matter, though all plausible one’s I’ve heard fail to jeopardize Papal Infallibility.
Peace and God bless!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Sorry, misread your last post. 
A
Ahimsa
Guest
By “public”, I mean “that which is proposed for belief on the part of the Church as a whole”, as opposed to “private” (“that which is a merely personal opinion”).
For instance, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury publicly teaches that homosexual relationships are sinful, but he privately believes that committed, monogamous homosexual relationships are consistent with Christian teachings.
P
Peter_J
Guest
But like I said, isn’t “public” a relative term? Suppose a privately heretical “pope” starts recommending his belief to his friends and family; then to a local newspaper which is only published in Italian, then to a magazine which is only read in Europe, and so on. Is there a precise moment when it becomes “public”?
I haven’t looked into the matter, but from what you just said it sounds to me like he’s teaches something that he himself doesn’t believe.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
In terms of the papal office, I would define ‘public’ to be any teaching requiring either intellectual or religious submission and belief on the part of the Church. The teaching would or would not have to be ex cathedra.
P
Peter_J
Guest
But why do you even define ‘public’ in terms of the papal office?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Pope is unable to become a heretic because he is the seat of the Magisterium and because the Church is indefectible.
The teaching authority of the Church would become unreliable if any Pope at any time could fall into heresy. Then each member of the Church would have to continually judge the Pope, to see if he was a heretic or not. For much the same reason, the temporal authority of the Church would lose its force if any Pope at any time could fall into heresy.
The Church would not be indefectible if any Pope at any time could fall into heresy. For the Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. A body with a head that is corrupt cannot be said to be indefectible.
Therefore, each and every Pope is continually prevented by God from falling into the sin of heresy, even in his heart, by the grace of God and by his free decision to accept the office of Pope.
The teaching authority of the Church would become unreliable if any Pope at any time could fall into heresy. Then each member of the Church would have to continually judge the Pope, to see if he was a heretic or not. For much the same reason, the temporal authority of the Church would lose its force if any Pope at any time could fall into heresy.
The Church would not be indefectible if any Pope at any time could fall into heresy. For the Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. A body with a head that is corrupt cannot be said to be indefectible.
Therefore, each and every Pope is continually prevented by God from falling into the sin of heresy, even in his heart, by the grace of God and by his free decision to accept the office of Pope.
N
Nicholas82
Guest
You’re aware that Pope Honorius was a heretic, right?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
(Yes, I know it’s wikipedia… theres better sources, just a quickly found source to bring this to Ron’s attention if it hasn’t already been)
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi Ron,
If you want to claim that the Pope “is unable to become a heretic”, that’s fine by me – so long as you don’t claim that the Catholic Church has ever taught that.
If you want to claim that the Pope “is unable to become a heretic”, that’s fine by me – so long as you don’t claim that the Catholic Church has ever taught that.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It bears pointing out that believing an error and being a heretic are two different things–being a heretic implies a culpable obstinance and a choice to choose one’s own way over the way handed down. If one desires not to rely on his own wisdom, but that of God and the Church throughout the ages, yet is mistaken, he does not fall from the Church. Honorious, for example, may or may not have been a formal heretic. He may have compromised under political pressure (like Peter denying Christ–Peter chose the judgment of men over that of God even though he knew better) or simply been mistaken in good faith. The fact that he was judged after death makes his adjudication as a formal heretic suspect since his obstinance could not be tested. Likewise, it is well known that John XXII in his own age put forth some erroneous opinions (Benedict XII, his successor, settled the matter definitivel afterwards), but no one I know of thought him to be a formal heretic.
In fact, the doctrine of papal infallibility would be superfluous if simply believing error made one no longer part of the Church since only someone mistaken about a truth of the faith would even attempt to proclaim error in the first place–thus the need for the protection of the Spirit.
That being said, there does seem to be debate over this issue. Some say that the Pope simply cannot become a formal heretic–St. Robert Bellarmine said this is the most likely case.
Others, like St. Peter Damian, said Popes could be heretics but their acts would remain valid (he uses Liberius, Honorius, Vigilius, and John XIX as examples). His reasoning is based on the fact that even prophets who apostized still prophesied truly because they were given the office to do so by God–and it is ultimately the Spirit who prophesies–he uses Balaam and Caiphas as examples of this.
Finally there are those, like St. Francis de Sales who believe he can fall from the Church, but that he must be deposed by the Church. I have never read any detail as to how this would happen. My hypothesis would be that since the local Church of Rome cannot fall away as a corporate body, it would be they who would somehow make this decision; the entire body of bishops might also do this somehow; or the Cardinals would treat it as a resignation and elect a new Pontiff.
This final possibility seems the least likely since it presents the difficulties Ron Conte mentions above.
In fact, the doctrine of papal infallibility would be superfluous if simply believing error made one no longer part of the Church since only someone mistaken about a truth of the faith would even attempt to proclaim error in the first place–thus the need for the protection of the Spirit.
That being said, there does seem to be debate over this issue. Some say that the Pope simply cannot become a formal heretic–St. Robert Bellarmine said this is the most likely case.
Others, like St. Peter Damian, said Popes could be heretics but their acts would remain valid (he uses Liberius, Honorius, Vigilius, and John XIX as examples). His reasoning is based on the fact that even prophets who apostized still prophesied truly because they were given the office to do so by God–and it is ultimately the Spirit who prophesies–he uses Balaam and Caiphas as examples of this.
Finally there are those, like St. Francis de Sales who believe he can fall from the Church, but that he must be deposed by the Church. I have never read any detail as to how this would happen. My hypothesis would be that since the local Church of Rome cannot fall away as a corporate body, it would be they who would somehow make this decision; the entire body of bishops might also do this somehow; or the Cardinals would treat it as a resignation and elect a new Pontiff.
This final possibility seems the least likely since it presents the difficulties Ron Conte mentions above.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not to get off on a tangent, but I’ve heard Catholics claim that the pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith or morals. Relative to that, Ron Conte’s claim is pretty mild.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ron,
Actually, your opinoin was debated by the Fathers of the Vatican Council - and REEEEEEEJECTED.
Most Fathers were concerned that the decree on infallibility could be misinterpereted to mean exactly what you have proposed. In order to combat that misconception, the Vatican Fathers added a very specific clause to the Decree on the Infallibility:
"That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra,…possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed…
Another way that the Council Fathers intended to combat this misconception is their change in the title of the Decree (as mentioned in the “Vatican I” thread).
The first draft: The Roman Pontiff’s infallibility.
Final form: The Roman Pontiff’s infallible Magisterium.
As you might know, the Magisterium is the authority of God manifested through the entire body of bishops, and does not belong to the Pope alone. Some texts translate the title as “the Roman Pontiff’s Infallible Teaching Authority.”
But the most conclusive manner by which the Vatican Fathers intended to combat the misconception was the addition of a Decree on the Infallibility of the Church. Many Fathers (Minority and Majority Party alike) felt this was a NECESSARY prelude to the decree on the Pope’s infallibility. The text was actually finished, but because of the impending war, the Council was prorogated and the Decree on the CHURCH’s infallibility was never able to be voted upon.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. If you have any other comments on the matter, would you mind discussing them in the Vatican I thread?
On the ECF, them’s fighting words, brother.
Actually, your opinoin was debated by the Fathers of the Vatican Council - and REEEEEEEJECTED.
Most Fathers were concerned that the decree on infallibility could be misinterpereted to mean exactly what you have proposed. In order to combat that misconception, the Vatican Fathers added a very specific clause to the Decree on the Infallibility:
"That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra,…possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed…
Another way that the Council Fathers intended to combat this misconception is their change in the title of the Decree (as mentioned in the “Vatican I” thread).
The first draft: The Roman Pontiff’s infallibility.
Final form: The Roman Pontiff’s infallible Magisterium.
As you might know, the Magisterium is the authority of God manifested through the entire body of bishops, and does not belong to the Pope alone. Some texts translate the title as “the Roman Pontiff’s Infallible Teaching Authority.”
But the most conclusive manner by which the Vatican Fathers intended to combat the misconception was the addition of a Decree on the Infallibility of the Church. Many Fathers (Minority and Majority Party alike) felt this was a NECESSARY prelude to the decree on the Pope’s infallibility. The text was actually finished, but because of the impending war, the Council was prorogated and the Decree on the CHURCH’s infallibility was never able to be voted upon.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. If you have any other comments on the matter, would you mind discussing them in the Vatican I thread?
- Status