St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[SFD]

Unfortunately, not many of St. Robert’s works are available in English. Given conflicting sources, the official relatio of the First Vatican Council presented by Bishop Vincent Gasser, known to all as among the most prominent theologians at the council, seems to me to be more authoritative with regard to this teaching being “certain” according to St. Robert.

Dave,

How sure are you that Bp. Gasser is referring to the 1st Opinion here?

I don’t think Vatican I was dealing with the question of a pope falling into heresy as a private person.

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

Then why does this (disciplinary infallibility) not apply to the Chaldean Church; is it not a particular Church?..a rite in the Universal Church?

SFD

Disciplinary infallibility does apply to the Chaldean Church with regard to CCEO as universal law. I don’t believe the “guideline” from the Pontifical Council is universal law, in fact I don’t even think it is law. The Chaldean Church while a Catholic rite is also a particular Church. If the guideline were in fact law, it seems it would be particular law, not universal law.

Yet, the guideline from this Pontifical Council on Christian Unity doesn’t sound like law, but instead sounds like an interpretation as to how universal law can be applied in particular conditions.

As St. Thomas Aquinas affirms, law is for the “common good.” Yet, it happens often that the observance of some point of law, while good in the majority of instances, may be hurtful in some cases. That’s why we have dispensation from law. So when affirming the infallibility of general ecclesial discipline, one does not have to conclude that the manner in which law if applied particularly is also infallible. That is, how it is dispensed or applied in particular circumstances is not included within disciplinary infallibility. The particular application of law relies upon an understanding of particular circumstances which may be in erroneous. This is precisely why valid excommunications are not infallible (and yet, still binding).

However, perhaps I’m misunderstanding the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff on the matter, regarding the documents doctrinal weight and intent. If so, then as I stated earlier, if this disciplinary norm is universal and lawfully binding in intent, then according to Pius VI condemnation against erroneous Jansenist claims, such approved general discipline can never be “harmful” or “dangerous” to the faithful.

From my perspective, I don’t intend to reject the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff on this matter. I’m not simply judging him wrong, and so rejected his authority. Instead, I don’t find that the Roman Pontiff is intending to teach doctrine by this guideline, nor is he intending to create a universal norm binding upon me, even if I were Chaldean Catholic. It reads like a guideline, not a demand.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

How sure are you that Bp. Gasser is referring to the 1st Opinion here?

I don’t think Vatican I was dealing with the question of a pope falling into heresy as a private person.

SFD

Here’s an extended excerpt from the Relatio from Bishop Gasser:

Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith. Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma…As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: "It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." *** From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not* that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and ***calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the ***most common and certain opinion.

From this I gather that there was some who opposed the wording of final draft of Pastor Aeternus, on the grounds that they opposed the teaching the pope, even as a "private teacher, “***was ***never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy.” Bishop Gasser refutes this by affirming that St. Robert not only called this “most common and probable” but also affirmed it as “certain.”

Now, the theological not of certain does not mean that it is infallible. But it does mean that to conclude otherwise would be temerious.

Moreover, St. Robert’s weight, while not infallible, is authoritative to those claiming allegiance to tradition. I also find that history has proven St. Robert’s doctrine to be true. Honorius was not condemned for heresy, but for negligence, as can be seen from the writings of the pope who condemned him. Futhermore, John XXII erred, but did not affirm his opinion as decided by the Roman Pontiff, stating that theologians were free to differ. Once further studied, he changed his beliefs. No pope has ever been a heretic. That this doctrine taught by St. Robert applied well for popes #1 thru #262, but finally ended with pope # 263 is unconvincing.

 

[AlexV]

I love how infallibility has now been stretched to cover “theologically certain” OPINIONS.

 

[GerardP]

For those that hold the position that the Pope can never be a heretic, I have a question.

What becomes of the free will of the Pontiff upon his acceptance of the papacy? Does he no longer have the free will to embrace a heresy?

 

[AlexV]

Apparently not.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I love how infallibility has now been stretched to cover “theologically certain” OPINIONS.

I don’t know of any who claimed the theological note of “certain” is infallible. I’ve expressly stated otherwise.

However, traditional Catholic theology has affirmed that infallibility extends to secondary objects necessary for the defense of the faith. Consequently, the Church is infallible in defining revealed truth ***and in condemning errors opposed to revealed truth.

From the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia:*

"Theologians are unanimous in teaching that the Church, or the pope, is infallible, not only in defining what is formally contained in Divine Revelation, but also in defining virtually revealed truths, or generally in all definitions and condemnations which are necessary for safe-guarding the body of revealed truth. …[It is] theologically certain that the Church is infallible in these definitions; and this infallibility cannot lawfully be questioned.

Catholic Encyclopedia - Dogmatic Fact]

Consequently, Pius VI condemnation of the contrary Jansenist claims that ecclesial discipline can be “harmful” or “dangerous” falls under this protection.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

For those that hold the position that the Pope can never be a heretic, I have a question.

What becomes of the free will of the Pontiff upon his acceptance of the papacy? Does he no longer have the free will to embrace a heresy?

You sound like my Protestant friends. What do you suppose happens to his free will when he promulgates and ex cathedra de fide definition on faith or morals?

I’ll tell you what I tell our Protestant detractors, if he is tempted to pertinaciously contradict the faith, he is given Divine grace which allows him to freely persevere in the faith, because that is the providence of God for his Catholic Church.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

In 1968, the first translation of the Ordo Missae in English appeared. It was published by Catholic Book Publishing Company and approved for use in the dioceses of the USA.

It had a translation of Eucharistic Prayer IV. The first line read,

“Father, you are the only God.”

That’s because the Latin those “experts” came up with him their Swiss hotel suite read, “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”

The books were released. With approval/promulgation. Within a year, a new version had to be published:

Pater, tu es unus Deus.

In other words, in 1968, the Arian heresy was published in an approved liturgical book, and filtered down through at least one major translation (English for the USA). It was corrected within a year after someone or someones caught it.

Dave would have us believe the first printing was somehow “infallible.” Nope, it was heretical.

Typographical errors and bad grammarians do not heresy make, or rather THEY DO but the obvious heresy thus produced nullifies the “official” document AS an actually official document!

Just as a “dead” Pope, who “kills his ‘Pope-ness’ by being demonstrably heretical”, is not capable of saying anything AS a Pope, a “dead” document which “kills itself by being demonstrably heretical” can’t say anything “infallibly true”.

Now, where that idea is in the official docs of the Church I haven’t a freakin’ clue!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

For those that hold the position that the Pope can never be a heretic, I have a question.

What becomes of the free will of the Pontiff upon his acceptance of the papacy? Does he no longer have the free will to embrace a heresy?

The Pope is incapable of heresy because he ceases being a Pope when he does that.

The person who is the Pope may choose to be a non-Pope, but he is prohibited by the Holy Spirit from choosing to be a “Heretical Pope”.

You confuse “the Pope”, or “a Pope”, with “a non-Pope”, which is the meaning of “a heretical Pope”.

An inherently (existentially) self-contradictory thing does not have free will. Only people have free will.

 

[SFD]

Here’s an extended excerpt from the Relatio from Bishop Gasser:

Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith. Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma…As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.” From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.

Dave,

Read the above very carefully…I think you’re missing something important.

St. Robert Bellarmine adopts it (the opinion of Albert Pighius, the 1st opinion) as “probable and easily defended.” He further explains, "Since, however, it (the opinion of Albert Pighius, the 1st opinion) is not certain, and since the common opinion is to the contrary, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to that question, in the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic.”

The 1st opinion is not the common opinion. It is only “probable”.

Bp. Gasser is explaining that the definition contained in Vatican I does not contain the merely “probable” opinion that a pope can never fall into heresy as a private person.

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

Read the above very carefully…I think you’re missing something important.

St. Robert Bellarmine adopts it (the opinion of Albert Pighius, the 1st opinion) as “probable and easily defended.” He further explains, "Since, however, it (the opinion of Albert Pighius, the 1st opinion) is not certain, and since the common opinion is to the contrary, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to that question, in the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic.”

The 1st opinion is not the common opinion. It is only “probable”.

Bp. Gasser is explaining that the definition contained in Vatican I does not contain the merely “probable” opinion that a pope can never fall into heresy as a private person.

SFD

I understand he called it “probable.” But Bp. Gasser refutes his detractors by also affirming what St. Robert affirmed elsewhere with regard to the opinion of Pighius: "it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion. "

This last assertion is pertaining to the “same” opinion of Pighius, which Bellarmine “calls most certain.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

Can you offer some support for this claim:

traditional Catholic teaching regarding disciplinary infallibility, which is theologically certain

This claim would seem to contradict, in principle, the dogma of Vatican I on papal infallibility, which limits the infallibility of the Pope to certain conditions. Short of those conditions, one cannot hold that the Pope has infallibility without contradicting this dogma. Since one of the conditions is that the infallible teaching be on a matter of faith or morals, matters of discipline would be excluded from papal infallibility.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can you offer some support for this claim

Yes.

According to Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78:

The prescription of the [Jansenist] synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

According to Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832):

the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect

Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), admonishing those who state:

"… categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church… [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794)… do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind?

And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?"

According to 1908 source of Catholic dogmatic theology, P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

According to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.

[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously** in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

According to Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):

“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends.”

According to Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort S.T.D., (1957):

The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline

of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term ‘general discipline of the Church’ are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church

 

[SFD]

I understand he called it “probable.” But Bp. Gasser refutes his detractors by also affirming what St. Robert affirmed elsewhere with regard to the opinion of Pighius: "it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion. "

This last assertion is pertaining to the “same” opinion of Pighius, which Bellarmine “calls most certain.”

Dave,

No, I think that is incorrect.
relatio of Bp. Gasser:

from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: “It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.”

What Bellarmine is saying can be believed “probably and piously” is this; the opinion of Albert Pighius, that is that as a particular person he is not able to be heretical. Bp. Gasser is assuring the detractors that the opinion of Pighuis is NOT included in the definition.

It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.)

You can’t possibly be claiming that Bellarmine was calling “probable and can be piously believed” that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff? This is what is CERTAIN.

The question of “as an individual person” is a matter of opinion.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

ENOUGH, sheesh.

The WHOLE issue here is that what the Church teaches is that disciplines lawfully imposed by the Church cannot lead you to impiety.

That is QUITE different than saying that they’re “infallible”.

And that’s the leap Dave likes to make, usually to trash so-called traditionalists.

 

[GerardP]

You sound like my Protestant friends.

They must be pretty smart despite their error, because it’s a good question.

What do you suppose happens to his free will when he promulgates and ex cathedra de fide definition on faith or morals?

Nobody forces him to make an ex cathedra pronouncement. He can either try it or not. We don’t know how the Holy Ghost protects the Church, only that He does. There may have been many heterodox pronouncements that were designed to be infallible that were interrupted by the unexpected death of the Pope.

I’ll tell you what I tell our Protestant detractors, if he is tempted to pertinaciously contradict the faith, he is given Divine grace which allows him to freely persevere in the faith, because that is the providence of God for his Catholic Church.

You’re telling your Protestant friends a fantasy then.
That would be a positive charism, infallibility is a negative charism. It’s only a small step to believing that the Popes after St. Peter actually receive revelation.

God gives an awful lot of leeway to his Popes to mess up the Church. The fact that we have so few sainted Popes should indicate that being the Pope is a very dangerous job and nobody in their right mind should want it.

 

[GerardP]

The WHOLE issue here is that what the Church teaches is that disciplines lawfully imposed by the Church cannot lead you to impiety.

Alex,

Taking that into account, let’s turn it around. If disciplines imposed can’t lead to impiety, do disciplines loosened (as is the case with virtually all of Vatican II) lead to impiety?

Card. Ottaviani called it the Church “letting all of Her defenses down.”

Michael Davies used to often refer to the passage from SC in Vatican II that used the phrase, “…for the good of the Church.” He would often ask if this or that permission or loosening (the removal of the Last Gospel; the removal of the genuflection immediately following the consecration etc. ) were truly “good for the Church”

If Communion on the Tongue was eventually imposed in order to lead to greater reverence and piety, is the loosening of that rule to allow Communion in the hand something that leads to less reverence and impiety?

 

[AlexV]

Exactly, and a good point.

 

[Sure]

ENOUGH, sheesh.

The WHOLE issue here is that what the Church teaches is that disciplines lawfully imposed by the Church cannot lead you to impiety.

That is QUITE different than saying that they’re “infallible”.

And that’s the leap Dave likes to make, usually to trash so-called traditionalists.

So, does that mean the new Mass cannot lead to impiety?