WHen a Pope is a manifest heretic, what duty do we owe him?

[Gregory_I]

What duty do we owe a Pope in the face of his manifest heresy? THIs is not about sedevacantism per se, I am no sedevacantist.

But let’s face the reality: It could happen.

When it does (not if) What is our duty to a heretic pope?

 

[GratefulFred]

Others will say it more eloquently that I will here.

The situation you envision is NOT POSSIBLE.

We must never forget the Jesus Christ Himself established the Catholic Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it until He returns.

To deny, or at least discount, the Power of the Holy Spirit is to deny or discount the power of God.

No one, except God, can stand firmly on hot air.

 

[Vico]

What duty do we owe a Pope in the face of his manifest heresy? THIs is not about sedevacantism per se, I am no sedevacantist.

But let’s face the reality: It could happen.

When it does (not if) What is our duty to a heretic pope?

The Pope is always due our respect as the Vicar of Christ, but we cannot judge him. According to the opinion of Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum, Volume II, p. 518, 1942, Rome, a heretical Pope is deposed when “the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity.”

CIC canons 212, §1 and 753:

Can. 212 §1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.

Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.

 

[Gregory_I]

Sorry, that is wrong. Pope Honorious Was Condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council.

It is definitely possible, read what pope Paul IV wrote in the 16th century in his Papal Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio

"6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, ***or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: ***

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain"

SO if Any Heretic cardinal was appointed as pope, you would have de facto, a heretic Pope, in which case, his election is invalid.

When THIS HAPPENS;

What is our response to a heretic Pope?

 

[Monica4316]

I don’t know, but such a Pope would still not be able to formally change the dogmas of the Church… so we should just keep on believing the doctrines

also - there was actually a Pope who was a heretic before he became Pope, but then I think when he was elected, or right before, he completely changes his mind on those issues.

 

[porthos11]

Sorry, that is wrong. Pope Honorious Was Condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council.

It is definitely possible, read what pope Paul IV wrote in the 16th century in his Papal Bull: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio

"6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, ***or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: ***

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain"

SO if Any Heretic cardinal was appointed as pope, you would have de facto, a heretic Pope, in which case, his election is invalid.

When THIS HAPPENS;

What is our response to a heretic Pope?

Actually, the earlier poster is correct; this cannot happen anymore under current legislation because Universo Dominici Gregis, the current law in effect, suspends all penalties on all participants of the conclave, both passive and active. Therefore, an excommunicated Cardinal can both elect and be elected Pope, and if he is elected, is a valid Pope. As a valid Pope, he therefore deserves the respect due to the office he holds, and just as with a sainted Pope, is judged by no one.

But if we assume your now-hypothetical, my answer is that we owe him nothing as he is a “manifest” heretic, the whole Church and episcopate knows it and he gets condemned and identified as an antipope (assuming Cum Ex was still in effect, which it isn’t anymore).

In today’s world, I’m not certain this is possible, which is why Popes Pius X, Pius XII and John Paul II passed Constitutions suspending all censures for conclaves, precisely to avoid situations like this and the inevitable chaos that follows.

 

[JimG]

Just for the record, Pope Honorius was not a heretic, and the Council which condemned him (posthumously) of it was wrong to do so. It had no authority to do so, and its decision was not confirmed by the then reigning pope.

Pope Honorius’s fault was in one line of a letter he wrote in reply to Sergius, during the Monothelite controversy. Note that the letter was in no way a dogmatic definition by Honorius. In the letter he agreed that Jesus’ will was always in accord with the Father’s—they were of “one will.” But of course, ontologically, Jesus has two wills, one divine and one human. The monothelites seized on the letter as evidence that they were correct in the controversy. But they were wrong, both dogmatically and in their implication of Honorius’ agreement.

Please see this link for a discussion of Honorius.

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

 

[Gregory_I]

Ecumenical councils do not pass binding decrees that the church is obligated to follow? Really? And you mean an Ecumenical council can be wrong about what is decreed? WOw, that’s good now I don’t have to accept vatican II anymore…

III Constantinople (Ecumenical) condemned Honorius in his official papal capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

To give a brief summary from the Council’s acts, which are quoted more fully later where it is clear that Honorius is being spoken of:

“We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”

“It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius…in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council…in his letter to the Spanish bishops…and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by…the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after."

If you have a principle, you need to follow it through to its logical conclusions.

ANd anything you except for this council gives precedent for those who wish to except certain teachings of Vatican II, so you better watch out…

 

[porthos11]

Ecumenical councils do not pass binding decrees that the church is obligated to follow? Really? And you mean an Ecumenical council can be wrong about what is decreed? WOw, that’s good now I don’t have to accept vatican II anymore… :rolleyes

III Constantinople (Ecumenical) condemned Honorius in his official papal capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

To give a brief summary from the Council’s acts, which are quoted more fully later where it is clear that Honorius is being spoken of:

“We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God. &c.”

If you have a principle, you need to follow it through to its logical conclusions.

ANd anything you except for this council gives precedent for those who wish to except certain teachings of Vatican II, so you better watch out…

No Ecumenical Council’s declarations or canons are binding unless confirmed by the Pope. Pope Leo II explicitly rejected the condemnation of Honorius for heresy, but confirmed his condemnation for his carelessness. Honorius was no heretic.

As for Vatican II, you do need to accept it because Pope Paul VI confirmed all its decrees.

As Pope Leo II rejected the condemnation for heresy, this part of Constantinople III is invalid. What stands is the condemnation for allowing the faith to be subverted.

 

[thirddec]

doean’t it say somewhere in the bible that even if an angel of God was to preach something different to Christs teaching we should not follow. So if the Pope God forgive were to ever go Mad and start preaching clear heresy then common sence would have to prevail.

 

[porthos11]

doean’t it say somewhere in the bible that even if an angel of God was to preach something different to Christs teaching we should not follow. So if the Pope God forgive were to ever go Mad and start preaching clear heresy then common sence would have to prevail.

Actually, if the Pope is valid, then yes common sense will prevail because he would not be permitted by God to teach this ex cathedra. Should he attempt to do so, he will be prevented, by death if necessary.

 

[BornAgain2010]

Actually, if the Pope is valid, then yes common sense will prevail because he would not be permitted by God to teach this ex cathedra. Should he attempt to do so, he will be prevented, by death if necessary.

HA-HA-HA

Get ready for the next Dan Brown movie

 

[GEddie]

HA-HA-HA

Get ready for the next Dan Brown movie

You mean the next book.

The next DB movie would be “Lost Symbol,” due out in '12, IMS, where he gives the Church a pass and rips on Freemasonry instead.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Gregory_I]

“I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.
3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.’
4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that ‘the originator of all evil … found a fit tool for his will in … Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.’
5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that ‘Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome’ they had ‘punished with exclusion and anathema’ because he followed the monothelites.
6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it ‘has slain with anathema Honorius.’
7. The imperial decree speaks of the ‘unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed’ and mentions among them ‘Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.’ The Emperor goes on to anathematize ‘Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’
8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’

1. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).
2. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.
3. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)
4. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., ‘smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.’
5. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: ‘They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.’

“With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899))

 

[Crumpy]

Most of this discussion is over my head. All that I thought I ever heard is that if a Pope is heretical, then he is not the Pope. It’s mutually exclusive.

Now, what happens procedurally, is another story. I just note that like Hitler said, the Pope has no army.

 

[Gregory_I]

It should be noted, I never thought the POpe could teach HERESY.

I meant if he revealed in his capacity as a private theologian a Heretical contumacy, what do we owe him in terms of obedience? My inner Scholar is telling me Zilch. Heretics are not part of the Church.

 

[porthos11]

1. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’

“With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899))

All this is true; Honorius was anathemized by the Council, but the Council was wrong to do so. Your quote above is the exact thing I mentioned, for “allowing the immaculate faith to be subverted”; this condemnation stands. Leo did not approve the anathema for heresy, so that condemnation is invalid.

But even if we were to concede the point, Honorius was not defining anything; he was not speaking to the whole Church, and his communication to the Patriarch did not fit an ex cathedra definition. Popes can indeed err outside of that.

 

[JimG]

As a private theologian, a pope has the same status as any other private theologian. As pope, he is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. As a private theologian, he has no such protection.

 

[Gregory_I]

So when a pope becomes a heretic in his private capacity, do we owe him obedience? FOr no heretic is a member of the church in any degree.

 

[JimG]

So when a pope becomes a heretic in his private capacity, do we owe him obedience? FOr no heretic is a member of the church in any degree.

Not sure I would agree with that. There are likely some or many Catholic theologians who hold heretical theological views–as theological opinions–who have not been excommunicated from the Church.

This is just my own opinion, but it seems to me that even a pope could have a privately held theological opinion which was heretical. He could not formally teach such an opinion as dogma, however. The charism of infallibility would prevent him from doing so. If he proposed to do so, the Holy Spirit, would, I am sure, find a way to handle the challenge.