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

[porthos11]

BUt aren’t they only infallible because their decrees and such correspond to the mind of the church?

Isn’t the mind of the church therefore the criterion for any papal or collegial infallibility?

No, it is not. The Magisterium of the Church lies solely on the Pope and the bishops in union with him, not with the faithful.

The Pope and bishops are infallible because of the singular protection afforded the Pope by the Holy Spirit by virtue of his office as Supreme Pontiff. The bishops too as a while exercise this infallibility when they teach officially in a matter of faith and morals in union with the Pope.

The faithful as a whole have a certain sense of what is proper, but the faithful do not possess the charism of infallibility.

But you’re digressing from the topic because infallibility only covers faith and morals. the original topic of the thread was disciplinary in nature (can a heretic become/remain Pope?) Discipline is NOT protected by infallibility.

 

[porthos11]

Based upon your remark, I guess you did not read what I wrote or at least not understand it (i.e., no deposing or judgement). If one is a formal heretic knowingly going against an established infallible dogma of the Church, then even a Pope cannot avoid the implications for his soul, and that can be clearly noted without a judgment.

Maybe you would need to read the source I cited earlier to understand the view.

This is what you said:

A General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope had ceased to be a Catholic so also ceased to be Pope,

You are incorrect here. Heresy does not un-Catholic a Catholic, and therefore does not un-Pope a Pope. This your first premise, and it is wrong.

yet the Council would not be judging nor deposing the Pope, (it has no such authority). It can make a declaratory sentence declaring to the Church, what has already become manifest from the actions of the Pope.

Such a declaratory sentence *is *a judgment even of the obvious, and is worth absolutely squat because the Pope must ratify it for it to even mean anything. Otherwise, it’s just another robber council. Again, the Pope is judged by no one.

As for implications for the soul, yes I mentioned earlier that this is a mortal sin even for the Pope. He can easily go to hell for unrepented heresy. But he doesn’t cease to be Pope for it.

 

[Gregory_I]

What about the POsitions of canonists like St. Robert Bellarmine in the 16th century who maintain that in order for a POpe to be pope, he must not be a heretic?

DO you believe heretics are Catholics?

Were the Heretical Reformers once Catholic?

 

[porthos11]

What about the POsitions of canonists like St. Robert Bellarmine in the 16th century who maintain that in order for a POpe to be pope, he must not be a heretic?

St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinions do not matter against current canon law and legislation in effect today, which clearly states that even the excommunicated can be validly elected Pope. I have already cited Universo Dominici Gregis, which abrogates all previous provisions to the contrary.

Even if St. Robert was right in his time, that a heretic cannot be elected Pope, that is not true today.

DO you believe heretics are Catholics?

Yes, although Catholics in bad standing. They have to be Catholic if our canonical penalties are to remain in effect on them.

Were the Heretical Reformers once Catholic?

Yes and they remained so, although in bad standing.

 

[Curious_Seed]

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?

There is no harm or deleterious effect to the Catholic Church, by a heretical Pope, or series of Popes, or series of Popes, Bishops and Priests.

The Catholic Church is headed by Christ and no harm will come to His Church, as a result of any one, or number, of her members.

So goes the Church, but the mayhem, of dealing with a heretical Pope, until His death, would be maddening.

 

[Gregory_I]

Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail:

HOwever he did NOT promise the Church would not be decimated.

He did not Promise the gates of hell would not APPEAR to have prevailed, though not actually and in point of fact.

He also was crucified and Died on the cross.

As goes CHrist, so goes the Church:

Why could the CHurch not appear as her crucified head and appear dead at some point in history, though a remnant will always remain?

A servant is not above his master, and the Church is not greater than Christ. If he allowed himself to die on a cross, why wouldn’t he allow the CHurch the same?

And what better way to strip the church and deprive her of her ancient beauty and crucify her and bring her near to death than to allow for a heretical pope?

Did Christ LIE when he made his covenant with David, that he would have perpetual successors, but Israel was taken over by Assyria and Babylon? He surely appeared not to honor his covenant with Israel, huh?

As goes Israel so goes the church: THe Church is the new israel.

This could happen: THe church could enter into a Babylonian captivity, no?

 

[davidv]

Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail:

HOwever he did NOT promise the Church would not be decimated.

He did not Promise the gates of hell would not APPEAR to have prevailed, though not actually and in point of fact.

He also was crucified and Died on the cross.

As goes CHrist, so goes the Church:

Why could the CHurch not appear as her crucified head and appear dead at some point in history, though a remnant will always remain?

A servant is not above his master, and the Church is not greater than Christ. If he allowed himself to die on a cross, why wouldn’t he allow the CHurch the same?

And what better way to strip the church and deprive her of her ancient beauty and crucify her and bring her near to death than to allow for a heretical pope?

Did Christ LIE when he made his covenant with David, that he would have perpetual successors, but Israel was taken over by Assyria and Babylon? He surely appeared not to honor his covenant with Israel, huh?

As goes Israel so goes the church: THe Church is the new israel.

This could happen: THe church could enter into a Babylonian captivity, no?

No and yes. Not “the Church”. But, individual Catholics, will and are currently are in exile in their serious sin.

 

[Vico]

This is what you said:

You are incorrect here. Heresy does not un-Catholic a Catholic, and therefore does not un-Pope a Pope. This your first premise, and it is wrong.

Such a declaratory sentence *is *a judgment even of the obvious, and is worth absolutely squat because the Pope must ratify it for it to even mean anything. Otherwise, it’s just another robber council. Again, the Pope is judged by no one.

As for implications for the soul, yes I mentioned earlier that this is a mortal sin even for the Pope. He can easily go to hell for unrepented heresy. But he doesn’t cease to be Pope for it.

So you have not read the opinion from my source, which is essentially that of Bellarmine.

St. Robert Bellarmine opinion: “The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.” – Bellarmine, De Summo pontifice, n. 30, lib. II, cap. 30. (lived 1542-1621 A.D.)

“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” – Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1943), II, 518.

Jus Canonicum, Rev. F X Wernz S.J. and Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII, De Summo Pontifice:

[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases…]

1. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which

1. the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.
2. A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church…
3. The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be “extremely improbable”.
4. The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. “Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible” as Bellarmine teaches.
5. Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence…

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

 

[porthos11]

So you have not read the opinion from my source, which is essentially that of Bellarmine.

St. Robert Bellarmine opinion: “The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.” – Bellarmine, De Summo pontifice, n. 30, lib. II, cap. 30. (lived 1542-1621 A.D.)

“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” – Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1943), II, 518.

Jus Canonicum, Rev. F X Wernz S.J. and Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938) Chapter VII, De Summo Pontifice:

[The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases…]

1. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which

1. the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.
2. A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church…
3. The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be “extremely improbable”.
4. The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. “Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible” as Bellarmine teaches.
5. Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence…

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

I am aware of Bellarmine’s opinion and I believe he is wrong. A Pope, being the Supreme Legislator is himself not subject to any canonical penalties whatsoever, including loss of office. My source and basis is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which trumps Bellarmine.

 

[Vico]

I am aware of Bellarmine’s opinion and I believe he is wrong. A Pope, being the Supreme Legislator is himself not subject to any canonical penalties whatsoever, including loss of office. My source and basis is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which trumps Bellarmine.

Bellarmine has stated that the Pope is not judged, so that is in accord with the canon law of 1983.

While the Pope would remain in his office, even when a manifest heretic or apostate, his acts would be valid, yet illicit.

 

[porthos11]

Bellarmine has stated that the Pope is not judged, so that is in accord with the canon law of 1983.

While the Pope would remain in his office, even when a manifest heretic or apostate, his acts would be valid, yet illicit.

Sure, we can grant that. Remaining in heresy is a violation of the moral law, but he remains the Pope.

Bellarmine himself was of the opinion that the Pope cannot personally fall into heresy although he still considered it an open question therefore he addressed the theoretical possibility. However, even his final “certain” opinion falls apart under current legislation. If an excommunicated heretic can be validly elected Pope, then it must logically follow that he cannot be automatically removed as Pope. The Church will be an a most sorry time during such a man’s Papacy, but all his juridical acts would be valid, including the appointment of Cardinals who can elect his successor.

 

[copperblade]

Is this question about Church legality, or is it about moral integrity? If it is the latter, it seems to me to be a more specific form of asking what duty do we have to our own conscious.

It would seem the answer to that is not only obvious but tautological.

 

[Vico]

Sure, we can grant that. Remaining in heresy is a violation of the moral law, but he remains the Pope.

Bellarmine himself was of the opinion that the Pope cannot personally fall into heresy although he still considered it an open question therefore he addressed the theoretical possibility. However, even his final “certain” opinion falls apart under current legislation. If an excommunicated heretic can be validly elected Pope, then it must logically follow that he cannot be automatically removed as Pope. The Church will be an a most sorry time during such a man’s Papacy, but all his juridical acts would be valid, including the appointment of Cardinals who can elect his successor.

Yes, he was addressing the theoretical situation.

Yet Bellarmine states: “But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence.” so it does seem that he agrees with the current canons.

 

[porthos11]

Yes, he was addressing the theoretical situation.

Yet Bellarmine states: “But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence.” so it does seem that he agrees with the current canons.

Your quote earlier clearly states that Bellarmine held the theoretical opinion that the Pope can cease automatically to be Catholic, and therefore cease to be Pope (5th opinion). What I’m driving at is that according to today’s legislation, this is not possible. Here I hold that Bellarmine is wrong (although I prefer to agree with him on his original thesis, that the Pope cannot personally fall into heresy).

 

[Vico]

Your quote earlier clearly states that Bellarmine held the theoretical opinion that the Pope can cease automatically to be Catholic, and therefore cease to be Pope (5th opinion). What I’m driving at is that according to today’s legislation, this is not possible. Here I hold that Bellarmine is wrong (although I prefer to agree with him on his original thesis, that the Pope cannot personally fall into heresy).

1983 CIC Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one.

Commentary: “Canon 1404 is not a statement about the personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the Pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would loose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair. … It says that the Holy Father cannot be tried by a secular or religious court…”

– New commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 1618

 

[porthos11]

1983 CIC Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one.
Commentary: “Canon 1404 is not a statement about the personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the Pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would loose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair. … It says that the Holy Father cannot be tried by a secular or religious court…”

– New commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 1618

This commentary clearly conflicts with the apostolic constitutions issued by the Popes regarding Papal elections. It’s only logical that if a heretic can be validly elected Pope (per Vacantis n. 34 of Pope Pius XII and subsequent Consitutions), then it must follow that a Pope who falls into heresy does validly retain his office and is not removed.

Therefore, these esteemed authors and canon lawyers are incorrect insofar as they say the Pope can lose his office due to heresy.

 

[Gregory_I]

I thought Pius XII’s decree only applied to the conclave convening after his death, and not further. ?

 

[Vico]

This commentary clearly conflicts with the apostolic constitutions issued by the Popes regarding Papal elections. It’s only logical that if a heretic can be validly elected Pope (per Vacantis n. 34 of Pope Pius XII and subsequent Consitutions), then it must follow that a Pope who falls into heresy does validly retain his office and is not removed.

Therefore, these esteemed authors and canon lawyers are incorrect insofar as they say the Pope can lose his office due to heresy.

The commentary is not about validity.

“… To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from the chair.” (36) gives the sources below:

(36)
– T. Izbicki, “Infallibility and the Erring Pope” in Law, Church, and Society, Ed. K. Pennington and R. Somerville (Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn., 1977)

– M. Schmaus, “Pope” in Readings, Cases, Materials in Canon Law, Ed. J. Hite, G. Sesto, D. Ward (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1980)

– S. Ozment, The Age of Reform 1240-1550 (New Haven: Yale University, 1980)

 

[porthos11]

I thought Pius XII’s decree only applied to the conclave convening after his death, and not further. ?

Nope. VAS governed the conclaves that elected Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. Pope Paul VI issued Romano Pontifici Eligendo, superseding VAS. This is what governed the conclaves that elected Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. It retained VAS’s stipulation that all censures are lifted for passive and active participation in the conclave.

RPE was in turn smodified by Universi Dominici Gregis (it contains no clause abrogating RPE). This law governed the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Gregory_I]

It is not particularly controversial amongst Catholic theologians to say that popes have been heretical. Indeed, Pope Adrian VI stated as follows.

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this **when he teaches heresy **by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII.” (Quaest. in IV Sent.)

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.”

“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen).

This also implies that the Pope thinks those under his care are actually intelligent enough to learn and identify the Catholic faith, apart from a POpes personal interpretation of what that faith means!! Shocking!.

Pope Adrian II († 872) admitted that papal heresy “renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings.”

“We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of **heresy, the only offence **which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings”.

If even a pope thinks thus about his predecessors, then why do we not suppose it to be the case: THat a pope can fall into heresy and be a real heretic and teach it as his own opinon, not as the faith of the church?

The theologian Sylvester Prieras, O.P. († 1523) discussed the resistance of a corrupt pope at some length. He asked, “What should be done in cases where the pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?” and “What should be done if the pope wishes unreasonably to abolish the laws of church or state?” His answer was as follows:

“He would certainly be in sin, and it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion, and likewise to obey him in matters which are evil; on the contrary, there is a duty to oppose him while administering a courteous rebuke.

“Thus, were he to wish to distribute the Church’s wealth, or Peter’s Patrimony among his own relatives; were he to wish to destroy the church or to commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason being that he does not possess power in order to destroy, and thus it follows that if he is so doing it is lawful to oppose him.”

“It is clear from the preceding that, if the pope by his commands, orders or by his actions is destroying the church, he may be resisted and the fulfilment of his commands prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.” (Dialogus de Potestate Papae)