When is the Pope infallible?

[Monica4316]

I was always taught that the Pope can’t say any heresies ex cathedra, but he is not protected from this when he gives his personal opinion or even in books (such as Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict, which is not considered infallible). Since the Pope has never said anything heretical ex cathedra, that was always my answer to sedevacantists.

However, I was talking to a sedevacantist who said that according to Church law, the Pope could become a heretic if he says any heresy at all, just as any other Catholic can become a heretic. And if someone is a heretic, they are outside the Church. Sedevacantists use this argument to say that Pope Benedict is not truly Pope, because in their opinion he has taught heresy or prayed with non Christians, or Pope John Paul II kissed the Quaran, etc.

My question is, how do we answer those claims?? I made a similar sort of thread but I see that it got closed (I am not sure why?). But I’m still unsure about this particular question.

 

[1ke]

It will do no good to argue with those wearing tin foil hats. They are not rational.

I hope you understand you will never convince anyone who holds this position because they make up their own definition of what’s “heretical” not anything objective.

 

[Samuel63]

Great point.

Here is a simple and quick response. On occasion, our pope needs to make a clear statement on matters of faith and morals to guide us in life here so we increase our chances of achieving heaven.

He then speaks from the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra) and it is binding upon all.

A good example is from the decree of Vatican I - papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

In session 3, below article 10, you can see language declaring the statements to be ex-cathedra. This is a wonderful document filled with declarations that provide clear guidance. I hope you enjoy it.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the reply… that helps to understand when the Pope is infallible.

There’s one part of sedevacantism that I can’t seem to answer though… if any Catholic can be automatically excommunicated for heresy, can’t the Pope be similarly excommunicated for heresy even if it’s not ex cathedra?

then the question is, has the Pope taught any heresy? I’m NOT saying he has. The sedevacantists say that he has. I dont know how to answer that either. I don’t know enough…

 

[promethius]

I was always taught that the Pope can’t say any heresies ex cathedra, but he is not protected from this when he gives his personal opinion or even in books (such as Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict, which is not considered infallible). Since the Pope has never said anything heretical ex cathedra, that was always my answer to sedevacantists.

This statement is true.

However, I was talking to a sedevacantist who said that according to Church law, the Pope could become a heretic if he says any heresy at all, just as any other Catholic can become a heretic.

I would say this is UNtrue. A Heretic by definition seeks to promulgate a teaching (aka, teach universally) which is contrary to the teaching of the church, which is magisterial insofar as faith and morals. So for a pope to be a heretic, he would have to be speaking on faith and morals, and have to be intending the teaching to be universal… HOWEVER, both of these are the conditions of “ex cathedra” teaching… so in order for a pope to OFFICIALLY become a heretic, and thus excommunicated, he would have to be speaking ex cathedra, in which case the Holy Spirit will not allow him to become a heretic.

And if someone is a heretic, they are outside the Church.

Even if the pope WERE somehow an excomunicated heretic, the excommunication niether makes one “outside the church” nor removes the ordination of a person. Thus even if the pope were excommunicated it in no way effects his office as pope.

Sedevacantists use this argument to say that Pope Benedict is not truly Pope, because in their opinion he has taught heresy or prayed with non Christians, or Pope John Paul II kissed the Quaran, etc.

Can they name this heresy? And last I checked, the ACTIONS of praying with Christians or kissing the Koran might (and I use that might heavily because in the former I don’t think it could at all) be considered sinful, but most certainly are not heresies, nor are they actions which would incur excommunication or laicization.

My question is, how do we answer those claims?? I made a similar sort of thread but I see that it got closed (I am not sure why?). But I’m still unsure about this particular question.

You answer those claims by explaining that the person doesn’t understand public heresy if he thinks that a pope can be a public heretic and NOT violate the doctrine of ex cathedra at the same time. You point out that their understanding of what is church teaching is probably flawed. You point out that their disobedience to the pope is no different than that of a sola scriptura protestant who picks and chooses what they will obey rather than conforming themselves to God’s will in the church. Finally, tell them you will pray for them and then do so, and ask them to pray for you!

 

[Monica4316]

hmm that’s actually a good way to put it! I never thought of it that way. The answer I gave to the accusation that the Pope has committed heresy, is that 1. we can’t judge that, and 2. we don’t really know what he meant in those cases… in the cases when he teaches on faith and morals we don’t really see anything heretical. As for his other theological opinions, such as the ones found in books - I’m not sure if that would constitute as heresy. (would it? I mean if I were to go around teaching heresy, I’d receive an automatic excommunication… but how does all this apply to Popes? Again I’m not accusing Pope Benedict of anything, I actually really respect him).

God bless!

 

[ChrisB103]

I think it seems kind of silly to accuse someone of heresy for actions such as those mentioned. I sure hope that Sedevacantists don’t believe that anytime they commit an action that is not perfectly in line with Christ’s will that they are automatically excommunicated…

 

[Abu]

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Refer to: Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” [See CCC #2089, Canon Law #751].

What is the presumption of heresy, and by whom has it been made?