Can a Pope Be a Heretic?

Crisis Magazine ^ | 3/4/15 | Jacob W. Wood

[marshmallow]

Recently, Cardinal Burke stated that, if Pope Francis were to endorse a position on marriage and sexuality that were contrary to the tradition of the Church, that he would be obliged to “resist” the pontiff. Although the cardinal clarified that he was speaking of a purely hypothetical situation, he hit upon a nerve that gets struck from time to time among Catholics—in instant messages, in passing, on Facebook, though almost never in print—“What if?” What if Cardinal Kasper’s ideology takes over the upcoming Ordinary Synod on Marriage and the Family? What if the behind-the-scenes machinations of his supporters ultimately win the day? What if the pope lets civilly divorced and remarried Catholics receive communion?

Fr. James Schall identified the dilemma last year, when he pointed out that the elephant in the room is the question of heresy. If Church discipline of excluding Catholics who have obtained a civil divorce and remarriage from Communion is based on infallible Church doctrine about sin and repentance, and if the pope tries to change that discipline, wouldn’t that make the pope a heretic concerning that doctrine?

In the finest tradition of Jesuit discourse, Fr. Schall insisted that we talk about the elephant rather than staring at it. I agree because I know that God is not going to let us down, and neither is Pope Francis.

What is a heretic?

In order to even talk about the elephant, we have to identify it. A “heretic” is someone guilty of a heresy. According to the Catechism, “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.” A heretic differs from an “apostate,” who is guilty of “apostasy” (the total repudiation of the.....

[Mrs. Don-o]

"defecting" = "defective".

And BTW, thanks for that graphic, Gamecock, much to the dubious distinction of the Church in the USA. Our canon lawyers have relied heavily on "psychological immaturity" as a way to find the vows to be null.

I have never figured out how a normal person in his 20's or 30's considered mature enough to sign a 20-year mortgage, join the armed forces, hold a political office, etc. could be deemed too "immature" to make a valid marriage vow. If I were a Tribunal Judge there's be some changes made.

And if I were Pope ...((((((sigh)))))))

[ansel12]

Isn’t the only time that a Pope has to be thought of as perfect, is when he is passing on to all Catholics, what God just told him, or that someone we knew is now with God and is a saint?

[Zionist Conspirator]

If he can’t, Catholics’ heads are going to start exploding!

[ozarkgirl]

Ooh, name names. I haven't considered a woman for the A-C position.

Valerie Jarrett - doesn't the Bible say something about the anti-christ just being a figurehead? Or maybe she's the devil and he's the figurehead. She's evil and I think she's the one pulling Obamapuppets strings.

[SpirituTuo]

I agree, just wasn’t clear. The state uses that term, but not the Church.

Glad you are feeling better! Was worried about you!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...when [the Pope] is passing on to all Catholics, what God just told him, or that someone we knew is now with God and is a saint?"

I'm glad you brought that up, ansel12, because that is a very common but very mistaken idea of what papal infalliility is.

According to the Catholic Church, Papal infallibility has no positive content. I'm going to say that louder so everybody can hear it. Papal infallibility has no positive content.

It is entirely negative: not a matter of what the Pope can or does say, but of what he cannot say.

At no time is a pope an all-purpose oracle. It is NOT prophecy. It is NOT inspired the way Scripture is inspired. There is no guarantee that a pope will express moral/doctrinal concepts in a full, complete, clear, accurate and timely manner.

All we have is the promise that he will not make an official declaration on faith and morals, ex cathedra, intended to be irreformable and binding on the conscience of the whole Church, that leads the Church into error.

Some Catholics are disappointed that Papal infallibility is as narrow and limited as it is. Some crave that all-purpose prophecy/oracle stuff. But such is not the case. And a great many Catholics (and non-Catholics too) are glad to hear that the scope of infallibility is as narrow as it is.

This 2-minute video should raise a smile, and it actually does show how (historically) the gift of infallibility has worked out in practice.

Fun Video (LINK) --- Go ahead and click the link, it's well worth your two minutes.

[ansel12]

If he never says anything that is infallible, then how do you know when he is being infallible?

[BipolarBob]

Or maybe she's the devil and he's the figurehead.

The Bible refers to the Anti-Christ as that man of perdition. Unless she is transgendered, she doesn't fit the bill . . . so to speak.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

What’s the Catholic view of I Timothy 3:2 and 12?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If he never says anything that is infallible, then how do you know when he is being infallible?"

Let me reiterate that infallibility is not a positive power of the Pope; it is a negative protection of the Church. Protection from what or from whom? Protection from the errors of popes!

It is a guarantee that, whackadoo as an individual pope may sometimes be in his activities and his opinions, he shall not have the power to impose them on the Church and thus draw the Church into error. (If he were able to draw the whole Church into his mistakes, that would be the "gates of hell" prevailing against the Church, which Our Lord promises will never happen.)

The conditions required for infallible papal teaching are as follows (from the First Vatican Council, 1870):

• "the Roman Pontiff"
• "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority...."), and
• "he defines"
• "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
• "must be held by the whole Church".

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, it must be:

• A decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (pope or College of Bishops)
• Concerning a doctrine of faith or morals
• Binding the universal Church
• proposed as something to hold firmly and immutably.

That last condition is fulfilled by words such as "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pope Benedict XVI: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."

Pope John XXIII: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."

[ansel12]

So the only time that a Pope has to be thought of as perfect, is when he is passing on to all Catholics, what God just told him, or that someone we knew, is now with God and is a saint.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pope Benedict XVI: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."

Pope John XXIII: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is a bit puzzling. This is the same thing you said at #42.

I addressed it at #46.

Do you have a question about #46?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Let me repeat, also, that “infallible” does not mean “perfect.”

[ansel12]

Two useless quotes.

One of Popes said that they don’t speak for God very often, and another one says that for some reason he knew that God wouldn’t be asking him to pass on any messages during his time of holding the position.

So the only time that a Pope has to be thought of as perfect, is when he is passing on to all Catholics, what God just told him, or that someone we knew, is now with God and is a saint.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"... for some reason he knew that God wouldn’t be asking him to pass on any messages during his time of holding the position."

Ansel12, infallibility is NEVER a matter of God asking a Pope to pass on messages. You would have known that if you had read #50: "Let me reiterate that infallibility is not a positive power of the Pope; it is a negative protection of the Church."

"So the only time that a Pope has to be thought of as perfect..."

When you start out like that, I know you are not responding to what I wrote about Catholic doctrine. I explained repeatedly that "infallible" is not synonymous with "perfect." Please scrap the word "perfect" if we are to continue this discussion.

"... is when he is passing on to all Catholics, what God just told him..."

Honestly, this is ridiculous. It is nothing of the kind. I just explained that papal infallibility has no positive content (I was carefully to say that twice) and that is not in any way prophetic or oracular. It is not a matter of "God told the Pope."

Good night, ansel12.

[CynicalBear]

>>Let me repeat, also, that “infallible” does not mean “perfect.”<<

Um.......what?

[ansel12]

So far my post is totally accurate, but the best I can tell from your wandering, and rambling postings, are that you are denying that it is.

So the only time that a Pope has to be thought of as perfect, is when he is passing on to all Catholics, what God just told him, or that someone we knew, is now with God and is a saint.

In other words Francis can be whatever various members of his denomination think that he is, goofy, left wing, great, or bad, or average, or whatever, except when he speaks for God, then he is infallible and perfect in passing on the message, or in telling them that someone is now a Saint in Heaven.

[pleasenotcalifornia]

I think the RC church would take this literally. In the early Church priests were married. In the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches priests can be married.