As I will try to show in the end, the analogy between the authority of the Pope and that of absolute monarchs is one of the most important directions that can be followed to clarify the issue of the possibility of a heretical pope. The era of absolutism spans the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. The most representative figure was the famous King Louis XIV of France (1638–1715), known to the world by his nickname le Roi Soleil (i.e., “the Sun King”). Without delving into details beyond the scope of this article, I will note the period when this new view of royal authority emerged: the 17th and 18th centuries. We will see later why this is significant.
First, however, let’s review the specific attitude of Christians in the Middle Ages regarding the possibility of a heretical pope.[ii] This is intended to respond to those contemporary Catholic believers who, without carefully examining the historical sources of the issue, believe that there were no saints and theologians who accepted the possibility of a heretical pope without any problem. The sources are clear: they did exist. In fact, until the dawn of the Renaissance, this opinion was accepted by the majority of theologians and saints.
For ecclesiastical leaders and medieval theologians, the possibility of a heretical pope was accepted without any problem. A prominent representative of this view, Dante Alighieri embodies in his epic poem the unanimously accepted opinion of his time.
Dante Alighieri and the heretical Pope
Three cantos from the section dedicated by Dante (c. 1265–1321) to Hell in the Divine Comedy present those punished for heresy in the sixth circle of the eternal darkness. Among them, right at the beginning of Canto XI, Pope Anastasius II (?–498) is introduced:
“Upon the edge of a high bank formed by great rocks broken in a circle, we came above a more cruel pen. And here, because of the horrible excess of the stench that the deep abyss throws out, we drew aside behind the lid of a great tomb, whereon I saw an inscription which said, ‘Pope Anastasius I hold, he whom Photinus drew from the right way’.”[iii]
Although exegetes tell us that the alleged heresy of Pope Anastasius II is the result of confusion between the pontiff with this name and the Emperor Anastasius I (491–518),[iv] medieval authorities did not hesitate. Both the Liber Pontificalis and the Decretum Gratiani, two authoritative texts of great weight in that era, mention both the heresy of Pope Anastasius II and the promptly occurring divine punishment indicated by his sudden death. That being said, I hasten to clarify that this is not about history here. In other words, I am not so concerned with the historical truth of the situation of that pontiff, but rather with the fact that for ecclesiastical leaders and medieval theologians, the possibility of a heretical pope was accepted without any problem. A prominent representative of this view, Dante Alighieri embodies in his epic poem the unanimously accepted opinion of his time.
In the context of heated doctrinal struggles with Protestant reformers, [Albert Pighius] argues in his treatise Hierarchiæ ecclesiasticæ assertio (lib.4, cap.8) published in Cologne in 1538 that a Pope can never be a heretic because it would imply the triumph of the forces of hell over the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Saint Robert and the “minority opinion”
Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) himself, as is well known, considered it impossible for a pope to be a heretic. At the same time, he acknowledges that medieval thinkers accepted this possibility, and his thesis was supported by only a minority. He points out that the traditional opinion is evident in the fact that Pope Honorius was not only considered a heretic but also judged for it:
“In the 8th Council (act. 7), the acts of the Roman Council under Pope Hadrian are recited, and therein contained, that Pope Honorius appears to be justly anathematized, because he had been convicted of heresy, which is the only reason permitted for inferiors to judge superiors. It must be noted, that although it is probable that Honorius was not a heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II was deceived from corrupt examples of the VI Council, and Honorius was reckoned falsely to be a heretic, nevertheless we cannot deny, in fact Hadrian with the Roman Council, nay more the whole 8th general council had sensed, in the case of heresy a Roman Pontiff can be judged.”[v]
Even though he would consider that, most likely, Pope Honorius was not a heretic, Saint Robert notes that Pope Adrian acted on the belief that a pope guilty of heresy could be judged. Therefore, he seriously discusses this “majority opinion,” reaching a conclusion that speaks for itself:
“(It) would be the most miserable condition of the Church if she would be compelled to acknowledge a manifestly prowling wolf for a shepherd” (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30).
The “minority” position adopted by Saint Robert was not new. It had already been developed by a learned Catholic Dutch astrologer, astronomer, and theologian, Albert Pighius (c.1490–1542). In the context of heated doctrinal struggles with Protestant reformers, he argues in his treatise Hierarchiæ ecclesiasticæ assertio (lib.4, cap.8) published in Cologne in 1538 that a Pope can never be a heretic because it would imply the triumph of the forces of hell over the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. His theory is based on a radical interpretation of verse 18 of chapter 16 of the Gospel of Matthew, which I have already discussed in my previous article published on The Remnant.
Although leaning towards this position, let’s keep in mind, then, that the saintly Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine honestly states that it is the “opinion of the minority.”
While in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were numerous Catholic theologians who argued that a pope could be a heretic, adding that “the pope is, in this case, immediately deprived of the pontifical dignity and deposed by the very fact”, the 17th century records a first change in direction.
Saint Francis of Sales and the traditional opinion
Indeed, if we read the substantial article in the best source of Catholic theology ever published, the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique coordinated by A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, E. Amann, in the seventh volume, we will find an article dedicated to papal infallibility.[vi] The author, Father Edmond Dublanchy, discusses here the issue of a heretical pope. Without hesitation, he states that until the time of Pighius and Saint Robert, “tous admettent sans difficulté que le pape peut tomber dans l’hérésie comme dans toute autre faute grave” (“everyone admits without difficulty that the pope can fall into heresy as into any other grave sin”). The only discussion up to that point was regarding how a heretical pope could be judged by the Church. Moreover, some medieval authors, as noted by Father Dublanchy, believed that the sin of heresy is the only situation in which a Pope can be judged. As a consequence of this position, certain theologians argued that in the case of obstinate heresy, the Pope automatically loses his pontifical office. It is noteworthy that this opinion is found, centuries later, in the article “Heresy” by Joseph Wilhelm in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), published with the approval of Cardinal John Farley, Archbishop of New York. Here is what is stated with utmost clarity in this article:
“The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”[vii]
Returning to the cited French article, it shows the shift in the traditional position as we approach the “age of monarchical absolutism.” While in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were numerous Catholic theologians who argued that a pope could be a heretic, adding that “le pape est, en ce cas, immédiatement déchu de la dignité pontificale ou déposé par le fait même” (“the pope is, in this case, immediately deprived of the pontifical dignity and deposed by the very fact”), the 17th century records a first change in direction.
As we have already seen, Pighius and Saint Robert, along with influential theologian and philosopher, the Spanish Jesuit Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), begin to support the “opinion of the minority” as probable. What followed is well known. Under the influence of saints like John Bosco (1815–1888) and a certain “ultramontanist” interpretation of the infallibility dogma promulgated in the context of the First Vatican Council, the “minority interpretation” became that of the majority. The notable exception, however, is a very important Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales (1567–1622).
For those Catholic faithful who wonder if there were saints who accepted the possibility of a heretical pope, here is not only a saint but a Doctor of the Church who, despite being aware of Saint Robert’s opinion, continued to support the common view before the Renaissance period.
In his most important work of Catholic apologetics against Protestants, Les Controverses (i.e., The Catholic Controversy), he left us an instructive passage regarding the issue of a heretical pope:
“Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did : ‘Let another take his bishopric’ (Acts 1:20).”[viii]
For those Catholic faithful who wonder if there were saints who accepted the possibility of a heretical pope, here is not only a saint but a Doctor of the Church who, despite being aware of Saint Robert’s opinion, continued to support the common view before the Renaissance period.
The era of pontifical absolutism
Let’s now return to the statement of Pope Benedict XVI at the beginning of our article. The comparison between pontifical authority and that of absolute monarchs in the 17th and 18th centuries is memorable. What is worrisome is that the doctrine cultivated by these monarchs was the “swan song” of European monarchies in general and the French monarchy in particular. Something similar happened with the papal office: although the role of the pope has always been, is, and will always be one of the essential components of the Apostolic College, everything that has happened with the Popes in recent centuries indicates a crisis of great magnitude.
Certainly, the modern world is characterized by systematic opposition to the monarchic structure of Church’s hierarchy. In such a wild context, wanting to emphasize the value of pontifical authority, many well-intentioned Catholics leaned increasingly towards a form of pontifical absolutism according to which the Pope not only cannot be judged but also cannot err (even privately) in any matter.
Defined in the constitution Pastor Aeternus on July 18, 1870, the dogma of papal infallibility illustrated the Church’s reaction at the First Vatican Council to terrible abuses of secular power. The infamous Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) attempted to turn the Vatican into a mere annex of his power. Two popes were imprisoned by him: Pius VI, who died in captivity in France, and Pius VII, who was Napoleon’s prisoner between 1809 and 1814. Pius IX, the author of the Syllabus of Errors, witnessed the destruction of the Papal States in 1870, declaring himself a prisoner in the Vatican.
Certainly, the modern world is characterized by systematic opposition to the monarchic structure of Church’s hierarchy. In such a wild context, wanting to emphasize the value of pontifical authority, many well-intentioned Catholics leaned increasingly towards a form of pontifical absolutism according to which the Pope not only cannot be judged but also cannot err (even privately) in any matter. They did not foresee the disaster that would result from the form of unconditional obedience they encouraged, both from bishops and priests and from those who believed they were restoring the sovereign pontiff’s position in relation to the new political powers. The end of this way of thinking and believing was dramatic.
The most significant event took place in 1969-1970 when, in the name of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Liturgy was practically suppressed by Pope Paul VI. Although the same pontiff abandoned the papal tiara, the way he acted to replace the liturgy of centuries with a “fabricated” liturgy indicated the invisible but no less effective presence of the absolutist style criticized by Pope Benedict XVI. The fact that he was right is indicated by the very sudden and unexpected end of his pontificate. Today, it has become more evident than ever that the Savior Christ’s word about His Church – “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18) – needs a different interpretation than the one that tells us a pope can never be a heretic.