Posted on 11/13/2014 2:40:09 PM PST by BlatherNaut
One man whom I know holds that all popes since Pius X were heretics. Whole groups maintain that all popes after Vatican II are heretics, even John Paul II. He invited leaders of other religions to Assisi to pray together, but he failed to evangelize them or insist in uniqueness of Catholicism. At Vatican I, several notable figures did not accept the infallibility doctrine. The Reformation itself mostly declared all popes heretical back to Peter. Pope Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII precisely over the question of the indissolubility of marriage. The Eastern Orthodox have rejected the papal position for centuries.
Under Pope Francis, columnists from all over the world broach the “heresy” question, which he is said to foment. Cardinal Burke remarked that Pope Francis should clarify just what he stands for. William Oddie thinks that, in recent comments on marriage, Francis has done this. Others are not so sure. I know a man who thinks that the pope should simply resign because his comments have caused so much anguish and confusion.
George Weigel noted that the modern world has waited half a century for the Catholic Church to accept its mores. It has not done so under Francis. A correspondent in Argentina, however, writes that only three views of this pope exist: 1) he is a modernist, but covers himself by occasionally talking of the devil, 2) he seeks attention and power by attracting everything to himself, and 3) he is a confused thinker but basically orthodox. The man adds that this last view is no longer tenable. Still he sent a document that Archbishop Bergoglio wrote on the gay question in which Francis upheld the old Roman Law tradition of marriage that referred to a mother and the sons begotten of her. But I would be surprised if Pope Francis did not have a huge following in Argentina.
Some writers hold that a pope cannot be a heretic. I had a professor of theology who held that, if a pope was about to sign an heretical document, he would be dead the next morning. Others maintain that if a heretic is elected to the papacy, he will automatically convert on accepting the Office of Peter.
The technical issue of an heretical pope goes back to Reformation discussions, led by the Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, among others. Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, and John Courtney Murray brought up the issue in discussing the difference between political and ecclesiastical authority. We read in Romans that the authority of an emperor, as that of a pope, comes from God, but in differing ways.
John Locke’s opposition to the divine right of kings was an aspect of this issue. The divine right of kings was not a medieval doctrine, though it did go back to oriental despotism, to the divinization of Alexander the Great and the Roman emperors. Authority came directly to the king, not through the people, as the Aristotelian mind had it. Divine right was designed to protect the king from assassination by elevating him to a divine status.
Bellarmine and Suarez considered a de facto possibility of an heretical pope. They granted that the Church would have to depose him if he did not self-declare his heresy. They differed on the exact procedure that would be required. Basically, electors would de-designate the man chosen pope. But as such, they had no authority over the papal power itself, which is from God.
In recent discussions of an heretical pope, the term sedevacante shows up. It means that, if a pope is heretical, his chair is automatically vacant by divine law. Some hold that anyone can so pronounce this vacancy, which would logically make every man his own pope. Bellarmine and Suarez thought the Church, in the persons of a General Council or the assembled Cardinals would have to declare the pope a heretic and depose him. They differed a bit on the exact procedure.
Several writers imply that suddenly the institution, which seemed so solid over the centuries, appears shaky in its own order. “If the Church succumbs to modernity, will it still be a Church?” they wonder. The main issues, in the case of Francis, revolve around the indissolubility of marriage, the nature of the papacy itself, and the approval of gay life as normal. The first is a question of reason and revelation – Moses allowed divorce, Christ did not; the second of revelation; and the third, homosexuality, of reason.
Issues such as the pope’s understanding of the economy or his reading of Islam as solely a religion of peace can be disputed. They are not so close to doctrinal issues. Though they seem to diverge at times, doctrine and compassion do not exclude each other.
Heretical popes? The essence of Catholicism is that there be none. It is also its essence that, if necessary, the issue be faced squarely and judged fairly.
Ping
This author should really learn more about sedevacantist views before opining on/making statements that involve them.
Uhh, this has been tried several times. Generally wound up with two popes, and if I remember right, sometimes three or four at a time, all claiming to hold the Keys of Peter.
What???
The author is a Jesuit and, therefore, cannot possibly be lacking in knowledge of any topic, including sedevacantism.
Piffle!
All popes have been human and “of the flesh”.
Everyone, even any assigned the position of “Il Papa” has been heretical, just ask Paul.
Tilting at windmills; nothing to see here folks.
Actually, come to think of it, what exactly is the author’s point? He never really seems to make one.
Surely you jest.
Historical overview? Sly implication? (famous clown nose photo is included with the article)
John Locke’s opposition to the divine right of kings was an aspect of this issue. The divine right of kings was not a medieval doctrine, though it did go back to oriental despotism, to the divinization of Alexander the Great and the Roman emperors. Authority came directly to the king, not through the people, as the Aristotelian mind had it. Divine right was designed to protect the king from assassination by elevating him to a divine status.
IMO the core issue is that of delegated vs absolute authority. If authority is delegated, then it can be rescinded by the grantor. If authority is conferred and rendered absolute, then it cannot be revoked. Protestants and Western Civilization leans towards the former. Catholicism leans toward the latter with regards to popes, bishops, and priests.
Yes, I see how that could be a thorny issue. If you believe the Holy Spirit is involved in the safeguarding the selection process, then the authority was not only conferred, but conferred with the imprimatur of God. How then, could a mistake have been made, and one who would turn heretical have been appointed? The only route to revoke the authority, it would seem, would be to argue that the appointment was not done properly, and was null from the beginning. Basically, you would need to argue for an “annulment”, not a “divorce”.
Pope Honorius I of Rome was anathematized as a monothelite heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
From the eighth through the eleventh century, all Popes of Rome in their oath of office confirmed the council’s anathema. Somehow when the Patriarchate of Rome left the communion of the Holy Orthodox Church, this custom ceased, and the pretense that no Pope of Rome had ever been a heretic, became established in the West.
Rather it was the Orthodox who broke away in the 1000’s.
“Yes, I see how that could be a thorny issue. If you believe the Holy Spirit is involved in the safeguarding the selection process, then the authority was not only conferred, but conferred with the imprimatur of God. How then, could a mistake have been made, and one who would turn heretical have been appointed? The only route to revoke the authority, it would seem, would be to argue that the appointment was not done properly, and was null from the beginning. Basically, you would need to argue for an “annulment”, not a “divorce”.”
Sooo, if she weighs the same as a duck, that means she is made out of wood,,, and therefore, A WITCH!
“Rather it was the Orthodox who broke away in the 1000’s.”
Not really. They go all the way back to Christ and this was not bowing down to Rome all that time as the Roman church loves to prtend. The Romans asserted that all had to agree that they were the final authority. The Orthodox did not change, the Catholics did. They headed off in a direction and weren’t followed. The Orthodox are the same as they were before.
That’s how you tell the story.
We still say the Creed in its original form and retain the fundamental equality of all bishops, which a dispassionate reading of St. Ignatius of Antioch shows was the original, Apostolic ecclesiology. My Patriarchate (Antioch) only broke communion with Rome when the Crusaders forcibly installed a Latin Patriarch in the already occupied see of Antioch in 1098, thereby confirming the suspicions that lead Constantinople to remove Rome from the Diptychs (in 1009 or 1014 as best we can tell), that you Latins no longer confessed the Orthodox Faith.
No, Honorius was not a monothelite. He was defended by no less that St. Maximus the Confessor against the accusations of the heretics. Would you then claim Maximus is a heretic for defending Honorius?
Honorius’ fault was that he followed Sergius’ (Patriarch of Constantinople) suggestion for a rule of silence - which thereby allowed heresy to flourish alongside orthodoxy while the heretics sought to supplant it. Honorius’ ‘heresy’ was that his negligent inaction, i.e., not teaching, had the effect of favoring the heresy.
Pope St. Agatho’s letter to the Sixth Ecumenical Council asserted the orthodoxy of all his predecessors - thus, by implication, Honorius as well. The Council explicitly accepted the letter and indicated its acts were in accordance with it, and anathematized those who rejected it. Therefore, logically, in accepting Agatho’s letter, the council accepted the orthodoxy of Honorius, but yet could still fault his part in the spread of heresy through negligence. Such was the tone of Pope Leo II take on Honorius as well.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=1445229
The East at various times in history accepted the papal claims, such as at Florence, and in more ancient times, for example, the Eastern bishops had explicitly accepted and subscribed to the Formula of Hormisdas. So, I must beg to differ, with all due respect; it was rather our friends of the East who left communion with the Catholic Church, founded by our Lord upon the rock. They accepted the primacy at Florence, and if that be not enough, they had explicitly accepted and subscribed to the Formula of Hormisdas in the 6th century. As well, they had accepted Agatho’s letter (mentioned above) which asserted mainy of the same points, such as the Apostolic See of Rome remaining free from error.
But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation.Of course, earlier there was much simpler:
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!...following the polychronia to the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch and to the council and the senate. (Quite the opposite of "accept[ing] the orthodoxy of Honorius.")
You would have us believe that the Harps of the Spirit erred in making these declarations, and this despite your church still giving lip-service to the authority of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils which we Orthodox also recognize. (Search your recently issued Catechism for references to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils -- even with your theory that a papal assent is needed for a council to have ecumenical authority, is there any doubt, given the content of the Papal oath from the 8th to the 11th century, that Rome assented to the acts of the Sixth?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.