Popes can err slightly but cannot profess formal heresy

An error held by some Catholics is that a pope cannot err, yet the Church has never taught such a thing. A pope indeed cannot profess or declare magisterial something that is a manifest error, but a pope can make slight, inadvertent mistakes or allow slight errors to creep into his speech. After all, popes are only human, they’re not infallible.

For instance, Pope Paul VI initially declared Vatican II to be the work of God, which he believed in the innocence of his heart, but he later recanted this by saying that Vatican II was the fissure through which Satan entered the Church (June 29, 1972). After 1970 Pope Paul had nothing good to say about Vatican II but rather lamented it.

Consider too that Pope John Paul II allowed the errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand, but deep down he disagreed with it even saying at one point: “I don’t want this practice.” (Fulda, Germany, November 1980)

Slight mistakes committed by popes do not contradict the Church’s teaching on Papal Infallibility. When it is taught that a pope cannot profess heresy in his writings or speeches it simply means that this profession cannot officially be made and completed while he is pope, for upon attempting to profess heresy he automatically loses his papacy and is reduced to a heretic, whereby the profession is made as a heretic and not as a pope.

For instance, a pope could never deny the historicity of the Resurrection or profess that God works through other religions and remain pope since these would be professions of heresy. Consider the words of St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1797), Doctor of the Church:

“If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.”

An example of a notorious heretic would be one that formally dignifies other religions. Some might ask, “Are you saying that God doesn’t bless members of other religions?” Answer: God indeed can bless individual members of other religions, but the primary reason for blessing them is to deliver them from these religions since God neither abides in other religions nor does he engender their activities.

There is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.

Hence any pope who denies this dogma or who encourages the faithful to cast it aside in favor of ecumenism immediately ceases to be pope. A formal declaration that Catholics may join or merge with other religions would breach this dogma.

The same applies for a pope who contravenes any doctrine of the Faith, be it ordinary or extraordinary. This teaching is held not by a few but by all the ancient fathers of the Church.

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…”

“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”

St. Antoninus says that such a pope who is cut off from the Mystical Body cannot be the head of that Body.

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.”

The lus Canonicum on the 1917 Code of Canon Law by Wernz-Vidal makes this same point:

“A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” It adds, “A doubtful pope is not pope.”

It’s important to point out that the foregoing statements by the Church Doctors and theologians are not theological opinions but reflect the continuous teaching of the Church. If anyone would doubt this, let them consider the 1559 Papal Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV. Papal Bulls do not contain opinions but are formal and authoritative proclamations containing weighty and indisputable truths.

6. By this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the Roman Church… or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate. 1

In keeping with the above Constitution, the theologians and Church doctors make it clear that it is not only licit but dutiful to dismiss and resist the directives of a wayward pope. The eminent philosopher and theologian Francisco Suárez, named doctor eximius et pius by Paul V, had this to say:

“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs [traditions], one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist by force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”

“Just as it licit to resist a pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist [him] who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church.”

So, we need to ask ourselves: does a pope’s "comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins" make him a heretic? Is a pope a heretic if he denies the miracle of the loaves, that God founded the Roman Catholic Church, that God does not will diversity of religions, that evolution is a myth, that homosexuality is a crime, that doctrine never changes, that Hell is a distinct place of eternal punishment, that unrepentant souls are condemned forever, and that Jews need conversion to Christ to be saved? If so, we have one among us. According to Paul IV and the Church doctors he lost his papacy long ago, if in fact he ever possessed it.

Let us not forget how he travelled across the seas in July 2022 to apologize to the indigenous people of Canada for the Church’s role in bringing the Catholic Faith to them in the past. He alleges that this infringed on their culture. To “repair” for this infringement he engaged in pagan smudging rituals wherein they called upon pagan gods (devils) to purify and bless their land.

Even as a seminarian he embraced Marxism and he is universally applauded today by the Freemasons with whom he is affiliated. Marxism and Freemasonry are intrinsically evil and are wholly committed to destroying the Catholic Church. His unrelenting down-talking of Western Capitalism testifies to his communistic aspirations, which he openly defends, even saying, “It is the Communists who think like Christians.” According to Paul IV and Pius XII, clerics who embrace or advocate Masonic or Communist ideologies automatically excommunicate themselves, thus preventing their ascent to the office of bishop, cardinal, or pope.

Some will argue that the 1983 code of canon law now allows affiliation with Freemasons and Communists without excommunication since it supersedes the previous code that forbade this, but it in no way supersedes the truth and instruction penned by the popes in their Apostolic Constitutions and decrees. As Paul IV said, his 1559 Papal Bull “is to remain valid in perpetuity” so that anyone who attempts to infringe or contradict it “is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.”

1. The pope’s Constitution calls to mind the July 13, 1949 decree of Pope Pius XII, which states that Catholics, including high Vatican prelates, who advocate communism or other like secret societies are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. This decree applies today.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, makes it clear: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”

So how is heretical Bergoglio judged and punished by the Church, aside from laity essentially acting as evangelicals are to (insofar as making the validity and veracity of modern church teaching subjecting to their judgment of conformity with past church teaching), and a few traditional prelates?

Which also states,

(ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these

Which presumes in Catholicism that there is a judge who determines who has fallen into heresy, or incured schism, or provokes or commit either or both of these.

Papal Bulls do not contain opinions but are formal and authoritative proclamations containing weighty and indisputable truths.

Which, perhaps to the delight of some here, would include Ad extirpanda, a papal bull promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.

Yet, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI. Which presumes you have a pope to submit to, in order to obey such past papal teaching on submission such as:

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

Thus the question remains, just who is the living pope that you submit to while an elected pope sits on his throne? This absence is not like that of the interregnum period btwn popes, but one in which the college of cardinals has elected one, without a rival papacy by another college (aside from the likes of a (late) pope Michael - elected in a small conclave in Kansas in 199) as in the Western Schism. I presume that since "100% of the cardinals who entered the conclave in 2013 were named cardinals by St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI and they elected Pope Francis" then they would be considered to be invalid by the TradCath sedevacantist magisterium.

As would be any such replacement since "if a conclave were held Dec. 9 and no cardinal elector dies before then, almost 79% of the cardinals entering the Sistine Chapel would be clerics given their red hats by Pope Francis." - https://www.usccb.org/news/2024/statistically-speaking-how-popes-choices-change-college-cardinals

Sounds like another Schism by a minority, not that I do not sympathize with them, as one of the sedevacantists who also make the validity and veracity of modern church teaching subjecting to their judgment of conformity with past church teaching, but that being the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest.

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.