A Heretical Pope?

Traditional Catholic Information ^ | unknown | Michael Davies

[jecIIny]

The above article is quite orthodox. However I must caution the reader that the web site it was taken from is supportive of the Society of Saint Pius X, a schismatic Catholic traditionalist religious order. Care therefor should be taken in reading any other material on the site.

[HarleyD]

A little confusing in my mind. There have been Popes that have been formally declared heretics by the Church such as Pope Honorius (625-638) to name but one. Yet this article states there can't be a heretic Pope.

[TaxachusettsMan]

Hasn't Michael Davies ranted and raved his way into eternal life yet?

Must have left quite the file cabinet behind.

"Care therefore should be taken in reading any other material on the site."

That's right, join SSPX in following the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches' approach to orthodoxy: there is no central teaching authority, so use your own individual judgment as to what is and is not OK.

[Conservative til I die]

Sedevacantists are Protestants playing Catholic dress up.

[i.l.e.]

And - the R.C. church has its own wingnuts and bloviating hot air machines just like the protestants.

A lot of bandwidth is deployed by well meaning posters in order to refine the definition of calvinism, the meaning of the Reformation and to provide scriptural enlightenment.

Few non-catholics are aware of the complexities of the current R.C. internal politics.

[NYer]

This is an old article. Why is it being posted now, during the pontificate of Benedict XVI?

[Claud]

I've never known Michael Davies to rant and rave. Everything I've ever read of his indicates he was quite balanced, quite fair, and decidedly reasonable.

[Campion]

There have been Popes that have been formally declared heretics by the Church such as Pope Honorius (625-638) to name but one.

There are only two such cases that I'm aware of.

One is Pope Liberius, who signed a heterodox confession of faith under duress. Since it was under duress, it was an act of cowardice and a sin, but certainly wasn't pertinacious denial of a de fide dogma of the faith. ("Pertinacious" would require at least a rebuke and a free opportunity to retract.)

The other is Pope Honorius, who was called a heretic posthumously by a council. The Pope at the time rejected the charge, and amended it to one of merely failing to properly safeguard the faith. What Honorius did was to write a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople which was at best ambiguous and at worst authorized the teaching of the heresy of Monothelitism. But his subsequent letters demonstrated that he was not a Monothelite heretic.

[Pyro7480]

Michael Davies was not a sedevacantist, and he did not support the illicit consecrations of bishops in 1988.

[Teófilo]

The above article is quite orthodox.

Indeed. Many Eastern Orthodox subscribe to it. As far as some Eastern Orthodox authorities are concerned, the Roman See has been vacant since the popes embraced the filioque, thereby changing the immutable Nicene Creed.

From this viewpoint, the Roman See has been vacant for over a thousand years.

Given a choice between this Latin sedevacantists and Eastern Orthodoxy, gimme Eastern Orthodoxy every time.

Sedevacantist arguments are self-destructive, incoherent, inconsistent, and historically vacuous.

-Theo

[Pyro7480]

Teofilo, see my #9, please! In fact, a sedevacantist website wrote a reply to this very article.

Davies then proceeds to explain that if the See of Rome were vacant for any extended period, with no Cardinal Camerlengo to organise a papal election and "administer" the Church, then She would effectively disappear. Now since visible unity is one of the essential marks of Holy Church such a result would mean She had defected, which is impossible. Therefore, argues Davies, it is impossible for the "sedevacantist" assertion to be true. Furthermore, Davies asserts that none of the "conciliar popes" have been formal heretics. Hence, none of them meet the conditions laid down by Church teaching which would result in their loss of the papacy. There are a number of serious errors in Michael Davies' theology which we will address shortly, but before we do it would be well to gain a better understanding of the "sede vacante" position.

[jude24]

Don't you also have several anti-popes? Similarly, wasn't one or more of the Avignon popes declared to be schismatic?

[AlbionGirl]

Not to mention really, really smart! May he rest in peace!

[Campion]

An anti-pope, though, by definition, isn't a pope. Not being a pope, he can't be a heretical pope. :-)

Similarly, wasn't one or more of the Avignon popes declared to be schismatic?

If he's schismatic, he's also not a pope by definition, since the definition of "schism" is to refuse communion to the Roman Pontiff or those in communion with him.

[Campion]

Many Eastern Orthodox subscribe to it.

Did you read the article carefully? It rejects sedevacantism, and refutes it eloquently.

[Teófilo]

I read the article, people. I was just stating my opinion on sedevacantism. I am sorry if I didn't make the distinction with more care.

-Theo

[Teófilo]

I read the article! I was just stating my opinion on sedevacantism. I am sorry if I didn't make the distinction with more care.

-Theo

[jude24]

An anti-pope, though, by definition, isn't a pope. Not being a pope, he can't be a heretical pope. :-)

How is that tautology fundamentally different than sedevacantism?

[Pyro7480]

My apologies if it seemed like I jumped the gun as well.

[HarleyD]

Sounds like a technicality to me.