"The Indefectible Church of Rome" – A Crucial Teaching in the Age of Pope Francis

[Reader Antonius]

[Important Note: This original post that began this thread has certain deficiencies due to the development of my understanding of the subject since it was first written. Rather than edit the original post, I have instead written what I hope is a better, more clear exposition on the topic later in this thread. It can be found here, post #38. While I stand by the overall conclusion & thrust of the original post, the later commentary is fuller, free of the errors here, and also has helpful links to excellent resources I've discovered as I've continued researching the topic. Páx et bonum!].

Pax, Ειρήνη, שלום! Praised be Jesus Christ!

The title is a tad more on-the-nose than I'd prefer, but I do feel that the situation on the Catholic blogosphere & even among well-known Catholic personalities (especially those who describe themselves as traditionalists) requires a certain edge. This is a topic I've wrestled with since Amōris Lætitia came out during my seminary years, and as I've watched large numbers of otherwise well-meaning Catholics (East & West) come to the conclusion that the Pope is a de facto heretic. For those who don't go that far, for whatever reason, there is a resurgence in the idea that a Pope can formally teach heresy (some claim Pope Francis already *has* done so).

Yet, this concept of a heretical Pope has serious theological problems and implications. This, especially, if someone is openly claiming that the Pope either is a formal heretic, or has formally taught heresy. If such a thing is true, then both the Catholic Church & Christianity itself is in a lot of trouble (to understate it enormously!). No...let's go ahead and say it: If a Pope of Old Rome can be a true heretic, then God has been forsworn. If that is so, then He is not God. (Psalm 91:4; Heb. 10:23; etc.). The logic of this is inescapable, as many Catholic theologians have noted for centuries; long before Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I. Even the historical & logical ramifications of such a thing are utterly astounding! Think about it. Why preserve the Church through all the Great Heresies, Worldly Persecutions, and Diabolic Trials just to drop the ball with...Pope Francis?? Wait, what?!?! It is not surprising that many who have accepted the idea of a heretical Pope have either fallen from the Faith, or are otherwise in a state of open "resistance" to the Ecumenical Pontiff – an idea contrary to the Catholic Faith on its very face, as even Pope St. Pius X (among many other saints) taught quite clearly & vehemently.

So what do we do? I'm no fool. As an instituted Reader and a practicing Romano-Byzantine Catholic of 15 years, I know well that the Church is full of rot; sadly, even the Roman Church. And I think most can agree that Pope Francis, for all his numerous excellent qualities, has not the theological acumen nor deft use of language than previous Pontiffs. Yet, that's beside the point. If anything we were "due" for a less than stellar pope in the Church for well over a century, if not far longer.

It's not the point because the Catholic doctrine regarding the Papacy is not dependent on the individual within office, but rather the Word of God. It is He alone who vouchsafes to keep His Promises...not Jorge Bergoglio, nor any other. And, more importantly, this isn't just coming from wild speculation on my part – it's profoundly present in the Apostolic Tradition.

Naturally, these forums are not arenas where I can exposit a 20 page essay on all the many reasons why Papal indefectibility is sentia certa (although it would be quite easy!). Instead, I want to point to the most important and specific documents that have special magisterial weight. Notably among these is Vatican I's teaching in Pāstor Aēternus. Many, both then and now, saw that document as primarily about defining the extraordinary charism of Papal infallibility. As we all know, this is a rare charism that requires extremely specific conditions before the Holy Spirit will grant it. Yet, Pāstor Aēternus is a *vastly* more important text in laying out the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine on the Papacy. And, as many have shown since the days when the very text was debated at the Ecumenical Council, it contains a strong & clear teaching that the Holy See is indefectable. More specifically, it teaches that the Pope cannot be a formal heretic, nor can he bind the Church to any heretical teaching. Surprised? Far-fetched? O how Catholic catechesis has fallen...

Let us begin there.

In order to properly understand Vatican I's teaching we must remember the context. For centuries hence, the Church struggled with factions that had differing views of the Pope of Rome. Despite a rather consistent teaching history in favor of what Pāstor Aēternus would decree, there were many who denied perennial doctrine. Some thought the Pope had only limited jurisdiction (e.g., Gallicans), others that he was a sort of oracle (e.g. "Ultramontanes"), that he could indeed be a heretic ("Dollingerites"), and still others. Hence, when Chapter IV of the pre-promulgated text was being discussed, the issue of the Pope's teaching authority & its nature was hotly debated.

A key insight into these debates is the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser. This text, often ignored to great ills, laid out the substance of the debate and provides an essential hermeneutic to these questions. I cannot obviously outline it all here, but it is readily available. Henceforth I will therefore paint in broad strokes:

The concept of a heretical pope as a theological question is not new (hardly!). The rise of Protestantism, especially, made it a topic discussed in the Post-Tridentine era. Most famous among those is probably St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine. Ironically, those who wish to argue that the Pope can be a heretic attempt to quote him to that effect. But as I will show, they greviously misunderstand him. Nevertheless, let us begin with him.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught that it was generally agreed that a Pope might fall into material heresy in a private capacity; most likely due to ignorance or error. This may have been the case with Honorius I and John XXII (although those cases are not anywhere near as clear as many claim!). Yet, the question as to formal heresy had zero consensus. Both St. Robert Bellarmine, and another theologian of whom we will speak shortly (Suárez), merely *speculated* on this possibility. Yet, both men concluded that the Roman Pontiff could not fall into formal heresy due to Divine assistance.

Suárez, especially, rejected the idea completely. He taught that even if a Pope, as a private Christian, fell into error out of ignorance, God would Providentially ensure that such a Pope could not harm the Church. Following the Angelic Doctor's line of thought, God would simply not allow such a Pope to impose heresy or even erroneous teaching on the Church universal. As he put it: "The faith of Peter was Catholic and unable to fail; but the faith of the Roman Church is the faith of Peter. Therefore, the faith of the Roman Church is the Catholic faith, from which this See can never defect." The quote is so like unto St. Bellarmine's teaching it is often mistaken as his!

These teachings made their way into the debates regarding Pastor Aeternus. As the Relatio of Gasser states, this debate was to be *settled* with the promulgation of the Ecumenical Council. One of the issues that arose in the debates was a number of theologians who held to a teaching by a certain Albert Pighius, who taught that the Pope as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To some this seemed extreme, especially the more "liberal" bishops of Dollingerite & Gallican tendencies.

Yet, Bishop Gasser leaned into this "fear" and argued brilliantly that Pighius' teaching was *not* only his own. The attempt to make a hard distinction between Pighius and St. Bellarmine was not as easy as the more liberal bishops thought. Why? Because St. Bellarmine was quite aware of Pighius' teaching! On Pighius' teaching, St. Bellarmine – that oft-misquoted "champion" of proponents of Papal heresy – declared:

"It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." This, ultimately in fact, is *precisely* the conclusion St. Bellarmine himself reached.

Thus, Bishop Gasser demonstrated to all that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter IV (more on that later) was not that of Albert Pighius, nor the extreme opinion of the "Pope is an oracle" schools. No, rather it is one and the same which St. Bellarmine taught as the most certain and assured. That is, the most common and certain opinion. In passing we should reiterate for clarity that the teaching adopted in Chapter IV of Pāstor Aēternus does follow St. Bellarmine on the points that the Doctor of the Church did and did not mean. Namely, that a Roman Pontiff could perhaps hold to material heresy in his capacity as a private teacher through ignorance or some other means, but that God would never allow the Successors of St. Peter to fall into formal heresy, nor bind the Church to such heretical teaching in the Papal Magisterium.

Before going further, let us not forget that this idea that Pope Francis has fallen into formal heresy and/or is attempting to bind the Church to heretical teaching (take your pick on which...) in the Magisterium is *precisely* what many giants in the "traditionalist" community (for lack of a better umbrella term!) have and do argue. I need not name names...

Instead, let us come to what may be called the "clincher." Forget not, dear reader, that an Ecumenical Council is the supreme historical act of teaching authority in the Catholic Church. Even if it only deals with ordinary magisterial teaching, it remains far greater than any lesser vehicle of teaching.

The teaching of St. Bellarmine above, according to the Relatio, was *formally dogmatized* at the First Vatican Ecumenical Council in the decree Pāstor Aēternus. Most specifically in Chapter IV. Let us cite the relevant passages as briefly as we may.

To begin, the Chapter notes both Papal infallibility & indefectability are present since ancient times. It quotes the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople professing: "For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true security of the Christian religion." It goes on after a few more examples to state what is the most important definition of Papal indefectability to date:

"6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error. This, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples...

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell." [P.A., Ch. IV].

We should note here that these paragraphs come before the extraordinary, solemn definition of Papal Infallibility with its subsequent conditions. Some have thought these paragraphs are little more than explanatory passages to prepare for the dogmatic definition. Yet, this is most certainly not what the Council Fathers thought! Their including the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (cited above in 6.) is a crucial hermeneutical key. Indeed, the lack of citation of this in the ineptly named, rebellious "Correctio Filialis" a number of years ago speaks volumes!!!

But let us return to the Relatio for our evidence. During one of the debates, the Bishop of Meaux, France, spoke out in favor of dogmatizing St. Bellarmine's Fourth Opinion (the one I discussed above). His call was not received well, it seems, by more liberal bishops (especially the French). Yet, Bishop Gasser defended him and declared:

"This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter's successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: 'If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.'"

This is a remarkable point, and it underscores why Papal indefectibility, even if not *extraordinarily* defined as Papal infallibility, is sententia certa – more specifically, "sententia ad fidem pertinēns et theologice certā." In layman's terms: "A teaching pertaining to the Faith that is theologically certain due to its intrinsic connection with the doctrines of Divine Revelation."

These truths may or may not be definitively approved by the Church (yet?), nevertheless they cannot be doubted without injuring the vitals of the Faith and its inner harmony as bequeathed by Christ Himself.

To conclude, am I saying Pope Francis is a best pope ever? Nope! Am I saying everything he says is golden and undying wisdom? Nope. Am I saying that he cannot hold apparently wonky private opinions about things? Not that either. Am I saying I think allPope Francis' lesser prudential decisions, pastoral judgements, or liturgical choices are protected by God? No.

But what I am saying is what St. Bellarmine said and Pastor Aeternus confirmed. To wit, I end with the great Jesuit Doctor of the Church's words himself regaring the first Pope and archetype of all his Successors:

"[St. Peter] could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith." ("De Controversis" Book 4, Ch. III).

And lastly, I must – as an instituted Reader – issue a caveat from the Holy Scriptures of which Holy Mother Church has entrusted to my unprofitable care:

"Vēre peccātum hariolandi est repugnāre, et scelus īdōlolatrīae nōlle acquiēscere..." (I Sm. XV:XXIII N.V.)

"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and disobedience is as iniquity and idolatry..." (1 Sm. 15:23 ESV-CE).

May it not be so for any of us with regard to the current Supreme Pontiff, even in the midst of confusion & anxiety...first and foremost myself!!

Let us pray:


O God, shepherd and ruler of all the faithful,
look favorably on your servant Francis,
whom you have set at the head of your Church as her shepherd;
Grant, we pray, that by word and example
he may be of service to those over whom he presides
so that, together with the flock entrusted to his care,
he may come to everlasting life.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the
unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Amen. +

I welcome disagreements and comments, but demand charity from all (myself included).

 

[Reader Antonius]

Huh...seems attachments work better than inserting pics. Good to know, lol!

 

[WarriorAngel]

As we all recall in scriptures, St Paul got irritated with Peter avoiding the gentiles in preference of the Jews.
St Peter did not err in teaching, he was personally in error in his personal actions.

^Protestants like to point out the statement of St Paul. But St Paul even made it seem very important to tell it to St Peter...
[which is telling] because of the role model of the whole universal Church was his purpose.

Often times folks get lost on the details, but don't mind the very fact how important his chair has always been: therefore; personal defects cause scrupulosity forgetting who is truly Boss via the chair of St Peter.

 

[WarriorAngel]

One more point ... if Jesus had not promised to keep the teachings of St Peter [keys et al]
then confusion would have destroyed the Church long ago. At the starting point once the Lord had risen.

He has not left mankind to figure it out, [wrest it] He meant what He said.

 

[Reader Antonius]

As we all recall in scriptures, St Paul got irritated with Peter avoiding the gentiles in preference of the Jews.
St Peter did not err in teaching, he was personally in error in his personal actions.

^Protestants like to point out the statement of St Paul. But St Paul even made it seem very important to tell it to St Peter...
[which is telling] because of the role model of the whole universal Church was his purpose.

Often times folks get lost on the details, but don't mind the very fact how important his chair has always been: therefore; personal defects cause scrupulosity forgetting who is truly Boss via the chair of St Peter.

Indeed! The confrontation with Sts. Peter & Paul is sometimes used to justify "resisting" the Pope. But there's two glaring problems with doing that. Firstly, St. Paul was an Apostle and with the death of St. John there are no more Apostles, only successors who do not have the unique charisms only the Apostles held. Hence we might call it "Apostolic fraternal correction." Secondly, and more importantly, St. Paul is not "resisting Cephas to his face" over teaching but rather sin. Indeed, St. Paul intimates the idea that "you of all people..." with St. Peter, which evokes the sense of his primacy even over the great St. Paul. Certainly, Popes also can receive fraternal correction of behavior...but there's a right and a wrong way to do it.

 

[Reader Antonius]

One more point ... if Jesus had not promised to keep the teachings of St Peter [keys et al]
then confusion would have destroyed the Church long ago. At the starting point once the Lord had risen.

He has not left mankind to figure it out, [wrest it] He meant what He said.

Exactly. I see a lot of that mentality among those who identify as "traditionalists." It is striking to me because, in so many ways, it's quite similar to the way I did theology as a Baptist. When you're a Baptist, there's no authority that can tell you what is correct or wrong. It boils down to you and your interpretation of the Bible (and other things, inevitably). Claims of churches, history, or traditional ways of being Christian are viewed with suspicion, as are new ways too. One can easily tie oneself in knots trying to basically figure out Christianity for yourself...to make it fit into your view and comfort. But, at the end of the day, it becomes not the Gospel or the Bible, but *you*.

I'm rather surprised to see that in the anti-Francis "community" (such as it is). They treat almost everything after a usually arbitrary point in history with suspicion. There's no sense of the ancient Catholic understanding of "receiving" the Faith in meekness and deference to the sacred hierarchs. Instead, folks try to parse canon law, Denzinger, Ott, the Bible, the Catechism, or any other sources of doctrine in an attempt to make sense of it for themselves. But what happens when you're opinion/interpretation contradicts the magisterial teaching?

This...issue is one major reason why very early on in my life I rejected "traditionalism." I saw in it unmistakable "fingerprints" of the way of Protestantism that I had left behind. I guess for me, I had quite enough of trying to "figure it out" by myself. I was ready to receive and be formed by the Church. This didn't squelch my "faith seeking understanding" (hardly!!), but it did mean that I got into the habit of submitting to the Magisterium even when I didn't understand...or want to. And that's not to my credit! If anything, it's something I picked up from St. Ignatios of Antioch, whose writings were my first taste of how essential submission of intellect and will is to Apostolic Christianity.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Pax, Ειρήνη, שלום! Praised be Jesus Christ!

It just came to my mind that I've collected a number of quotes over the years in journals dealing with this question from various Fathers & Doctors. I didn't cite them when collecting them, but the citations are easy enough to find. I don't deal in fake quotes.

"In the faith of Peter there is nothing wanting, nothing obscure, nothing imperfect, nothing against which evil doctrines and pernicious views can prevail, after the manner of the gates of hell. And where is the faith of Peter, but in the See of Peter? There, there I must go..."
–St. Ninian of Scotland

"[D]ivine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father. Nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." –St. Catherine of Siena [More of a question of submission of will and intellect, but w/ implied indefectibility].

"We must never oppose [the Pope's] will, or dispute his word, or criticize his policy, or shrink from his side. There are kings of the earth who have despotic authority, which their subjects obey indeed but disown in their hearts; but we must never murmur at that absolute rule which the Sovereign Pontiff has over us, because it is given to him by Christ, and, in obeying him, we are obeying his Lord."
–St. John Henry Cardinal Newman
[Few realize that St. Newman was very much partial to the position of the so-called "Ultramontanes" of his day].

There may be more but I'll have to dig a bit.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Exactly. I see a lot of that mentality among those who identify as "traditionalists." It is striking to me because, in so many ways, it's quite similar to the way I did theology as a Baptist. When you're a Baptist, there's no authority that can tell you what is correct or wrong. It boils down to you and your interpretation of the Bible (and other things, inevitably). Claims of churches, history, or traditional ways of being Christian are viewed with suspicion, as are new ways too. One can easily tie oneself in knots trying to basically figure out Christianity for yourself...to make it fit into your view and comfort. But, at the end of the day, it becomes not the Gospel or the Bible, but *you*.

I'm rather surprised to see that in the anti-Francis "community" (such as it is). They treat almost everything after a usually arbitrary point in history with suspicion. There's no sense of the ancient Catholic understanding of "receiving" the Faith in meekness and deference to the sacred hierarchs. Instead, folks try to parse canon law, Denzinger, Ott, the Bible, the Catechism, or any other sources of doctrine in an attempt to make sense of it for themselves. But what happens when you're opinion/interpretation contradicts the magisterial teaching?

This...issue is one major reason why very early on in my life I rejected "traditionalism." I saw in it unmistakable "fingerprints" of the way of Protestantism that I had left behind. I guess for me, I had quite enough of trying to "figure it out" by myself. I was ready to receive and be formed by the Church. This didn't squelch my "faith seeking understanding" (hardly!!), but it did mean that I got into the habit of submitting to the Magisterium even when I didn't understand...or want to. And that's not to my credit! If anything, it's something I picked up from St. Ignatios of Antioch, whose writings were my first taste of how essential submission of intellect and will is to Apostolic Christianity.

I am sympathetic to what you say about traditionalism having a surprising similarity in thinking patterns to some of Protestantism. I think you are on to 'something'. I don't know if it defines all traditionalist Catholics though. Or if it's just a characteristic of people in dissonant situations.

I know we have had a few handfuls of bad popes over the years and yet we have survived them all so far. Mostly because they were a long way away in Rome and we didn't hang on every word a pope ever said anyway.

This pope is different. He holds ad lib press conferences on airplanes and his words are pretty much impossible to avoid without trying deliberately to do so. So we hear things from him we would never hear from popes a long time ago. We 'could' get 'pope tweets' if we were so inclined. Somebody has compiled a very long list of his insult quotes into a book. Some people say he has slipped into heresy. Others just wonder what's going on and know it's something not quite right. Some of us know the media just doesn't 'get' religion and definitely doesn't 'get' Catholic. So here we are. It's confusing.

Some people just can't see pope Francis is a real pope by some flaw of the resignation of pope Benedict or whatever. Others think he ceased being pope when he did or said something. I think he's the real pope but just not a good one. What do I do about that? I have to pray for him. I have to tune out as much as I can so I don't go crazy. But I can't go off the deep end. I have to maintain unity with those the pope is in unity with, as hard as that is becoming in some cases. I don't know where things are going and how much crazier things might get, and that unsettles me. I've never been a 'trad' although I do have some opinions that would give some people an idea that I might be. I was in a way formed by reading Papa Benedict's works and papa John Paul II's works. I find myself way out in the outfield now.

 

[Reader Antonius]

More quotes I dug up:

"The Roman Pontiff – like all the faithful – is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is 'servant of the servants of God.' He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the bishopric of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation. The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy."
–Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

"Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition, to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops: today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's..."
–Pope St. Paul VI

"I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biased. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience."
–St. John Henry Cardinal Newman

"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave her...but judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments...then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone."
–Pope St. Pius X

 

[mourningdove~]

Interesting things you have been sharing!

For myself, I do recognize the current pope as pope. I pray for him.

But rarely do I engage in public discussions about him because, while I do very much respect his position ...
I am often confused, and concerned, by some of the things that he says and does ...
and so, it is best that I do not publicly comment much on them.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I am sympathetic to what you say about traditionalism having a surprising similarity in thinking patterns to some of Protestantism. I think you are on to 'something'. I don't know if it defines all traditionalist Catholics though. Or if it's just a characteristic of people in dissonant situations.

I too have more in common with the self-proclaimed "traditionalist" vs. the self-proclaimed "progressive." But this must be qualified, for I also have more in common with the Donatist than the Valentinian. The problem with both traditionalist & progressive (insofar as they stray from obedience or adherence to teaching) is virtually the same – it just manifests differently. The Protestant impulse is not all that "Protestant," as it turns out. That is to say that everyone is tempted towards what St. Paul calls "itching ears" (2 Tim. 4:3), myself included. We all would prefer our own interpretation of the Scriptures & the Tradition over another's – even a hierarch – most especially if we feel the "other" is wrong or misguided. It is a natural impulse rooted in our Fallen nature, whose concupiscence includes a tendency to lack trust in God. No-one is exempt, and we must all work to conform our lives to the Magisterium's guidance; most especially when we cannot perceive the full nuances or truth therein. Many a time in Church history, the Magisterial pronouncements have either been challenged or found little initial support precisely because even loyal Catholics could not perceive the rationale or full breadth of the "new" teaching. Many of the newly defined Christological or Pneumatological dogmas of the early centuries had this quality. It took time for them to be completely received, especially in particular churches that had, for whatever reason, been on or leaned towards the heretical side (in good conscience or ignorance).

Now, this is not to say that everything Pope Francis says fall into the category of excellent teaching. Indeed, the most the Holy Spirit assures us is simply that we will not be led into heresy by the reigning Pontiff; not that the teaching is always an unqualified good. At the same time, we must (especially as laity, but it is true for all) engage in submission of will and intellect when the Pope exercises his Magisterium. As the newest & most current "profession of Faith" of the entire Church, East & West, puts it:

"Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act..."

Pope Benedict XVI, as prefect of the CDF, explained it thus: "As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression."

Hence, even in ordinary teaching, there are degrees to which we must submit beyond the minimum due to obedience – which is always assumed unless there's reasonable grounds not to. Some of Pope Francis' teachings (including apparently controversial ones) fall into this category. Others simply do not. Put another way, some (perhaps the majority as reflected in his official texts) will survive his pontificate as nuanced understandings or even doctrinal developments in the Deposit of Faith (e.g., the "new" teaching on the impermissibility of the death penalty in virtually all cases). But many others (probably such things as off-the-cuff or interview statements) will fall by the wayside. It has been like this since the beginning.

I know we have had a few handfuls of bad popes over the years and yet we have survived them all so far. Mostly because they were a long way away in Rome and we didn't hang on every word a pope ever said anyway.

This pope is different. He holds ad lib press conferences on airplanes and his words are pretty much impossible to avoid without trying deliberately to do so. So we hear things from him we would never hear from popes a long time ago. We 'could' get 'pope tweets' if we were so inclined. Somebody has compiled a very long list of his insult quotes into a book. Some people say he has slipped into heresy. Others just wonder what's going on and know it's something not quite right. Some of us know the media just doesn't 'get' religion and definitely doesn't 'get' Catholic. So here we are. It's confusing.

This is a fair point, but the assumption of heresy or even confusion does not necessarily follow. Amōris Lætitia is an example of this. Despite the initial uproar & continuing refusal of acceptance by some "traditionalists," it has been shown in recent years & contemplation of the text by many excellent theologians that the long, involved document is not contradictory to previous teaching nor, of course then, doctrine. If anything it signals a change of discipline, which (hallowed though it be) is not irreformable. A number of new books & monographs have demonstrated this quite aptly.

An example of a seemingly irreformable practice that has long changed is this following: It is quite clear that the public confession of sins was a part of both the Sacraments of Baptism & certainly Reconciliation. Yet, starting in the late Patristic period, this Apostolic practice was essentially abolished everywhere (or simply died out). It was unworkable even then, albeit it manifests an important truth. Pastoral need however indicated that the Apostolic practice was not part of the Deposit of Faith – despite having the highest origin! It was thus reformed, and private confession is the norm.

Generally speaking though, you are quite right: The current climate of media, which will only get worse, means that almost every word out of the Pope's mouth (especially anything that may sound like a "progressive" cause or teaching to the media) is seized upon and analyzed to death. This is unhelpful and, frankly, unnecessary. One thing future Popes will need to do, if the current Pontiff does not change his habits, is take up a habit of discretion & caution when approaching the media.

That said, while the media has indeed contributed to the confusion, it is not an irresolvable confusion at all. But it does disturb the faithful who are not trained to appreciate the theological or pastoral nuances of official teaching; much less off-the-cuff statements, which generally have little authority. This is why a habit of discretion must become customary for the Holy See.

Some people just can't see pope Francis is a real pope by some flaw of the resignation of pope Benedict or whatever. Others think he ceased being pope when he did or said something. I think he's the real pope but just not a good one. What do I do about that? I have to pray for him. I have to tune out as much as I can so I don't go crazy. But I can't go off the deep end. I have to maintain unity with those the pope is in unity with, as hard as that is becoming in some cases. I don't know where things are going and how much crazier things might get, and that unsettles me. I've never been a 'trad' although I do have some opinions that would give some people an idea that I might be. I was in a way formed by reading Papa Benedict's works and papa John Paul II's works. I find myself way out in the outfield now.

I can sympathize, and I would make a few points in response. Firstly, the notion that Francis is either not the true Pope, or that he has "forfeited" the Papacy (which is really more speculation on the part of theologians than ever being a historical reality), are schismatic notions – full stop. So we can dispense with these ideas easily as the pernicious, ill-conceived concepts that they are. They need not causes us concern or anxiety.

Regarding the quality of the Pope, we must not forget that (as you already stated) there have been a number of poor Popes. This is lamentable, but not a true theological issue. Never have the "bad Popes" engaged in false teaching on any magisterial scale, and certainly did not teach it formally (which is impossible). That point of impossibility comes to your second point about the sense of "craziness" and how much worse the climate may become. No Catholic ought to fear the Pope failing or falling to formal heresy, because such a thing is not real. It is akin to being afraid of a dragon or a chimera of Greek myth. Certainly, we can suffer in loving obedience and/or privately lament a bad Pope or a confusing one – and, honestly, Pope Francis is far less confusing than folks think if viewed through the lens of his actual, official writings. It is his off-the-cuff or interviewed comments which unsettle the faithful in terms of coming directly from him. Hence, even in the case of scandal, moral failure, or general confusion caused by a bad Pope, there are clear Divine & even natural limits to the "damage" that can be done. It reminds me of one Cardinal's retort to Napoleon when he said he could destroy the Church. Fun quote worth Googling.

I would also seriously challenge the notion that you, and presumably other more Benedictine & Johanno-Pauline Catholics (as it were), which include myself, are "in the outfield." This is not the case. Much of the so-called controversial teaching in the official documents of Pope Francis have precedent in precisely those two previous Pontiffs (e.g., the death penalty, internal forum discernment for divorced & remarried, environmentalism, moral theology, and many aspects of pastoral care & discipline). If one feels in the outfield, it is helpful to question why that is.

To wit, and using myself as an example: Do I feel alienated because I've read the official teachings of Pope Francis and find them irreconcilable (in which case there is a remedy as per Dōnum Vēritātis)? Or is it due to my consumption of media, outspoken & careless critics, and/or mere statements or confusing behavior from the Pontiff lacking much magisterial authority? It is a helpful question, and one I've come back to many times. And each time I find that my "quarrel" is not with the Supreme Pontiff per se, as it is his "less than stellar" performance, or my lack of conversancy with his official teachings and/or a feeling of incitement by various kinds of media.

A quick example related to recent events would be the appointment of the new Prefect of the CDF. Catholic & secular media were abuzz with the Pope's appointment due to fears (or "hopes") that the new prefect would be overly "progressive" (to put it more mildly), or that he is the almost certain successor to Francis. But neither of these has played out yet, and there is in fact precedence of something of the opposite occurring. Even in recent times, certain hierarchs appeared to be in one "camp" of theological distinction, but when appointed to a position of great authority, changed to become much more hierarchs who "toed-the-line." And even if the new prefect turns out to be terrible, he can be replaced with the stroke of a pen – whether by Francis (whose time in the Chair of St. Peter is growing quickly limited) or his successor. And, frankly, I doubt seriously that the College of Cardinals wishes for another Pope Francis; even among the Cardinals appointed by him. Still yet too: "Man proposes, but God disposes," as the saying goes.

I find that the fears and anxieties surrounding the current Pontificate are like the majority of our human fears. That is, they are substantially less grounded in reality than we think or perceive...sometimes not at all. Our brains, due to either the Fall and/or instinct inherited from purely material ancestors prior to our First Parents, are well-designed to catastrophize, react to fear & anxiety, and engage in suspicions of all kinds. It's one of the ways we survive in the Fallen state. Yet, we also now live the Age of the Church & a much less dangerous society (most of us, anyway). But the brain's instincts do not change so quickly as civilization does. That said, this apparent "flaw" in our thinking provides a powerful opportunity for trust & abandonment to Divine Providence. Out of all things evil, God brings all things good. We must not lose sight of this chance to grow in holiness. I first of all.

 

[zippy2006]

Hello Antonius. I hope you are well.

I feel I must debunk your OP, because it contains a great many errors. I will not address all of them.

First, the received and current teaching of the Church is that a pope can commit formal heresy and thereby be deposed. Some quotes:

A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.

(Catholic Encyclopedia | Infallibility)

Those two points being understood, the canonical tradition yet recognizes (and history suggests) that a given pope could fall into personal heresy and that he might even promote such heresy publicly, which brings us to some thoughts on those possibilities.

[...]

Wrenn, writing in the CLSA NEW COMM (2001) at 1618 states: “Canon 1404 is not a statement of personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair.” While I suggest that Wrenn’s warning be read again, lest its startling impact be overlooked by the calm manner in which he expressed it, turning to the crucial question as to who would determine whether a given pope has fallen into heresy, Wrenn notes that it is not se led by Canon 1404 nor, I would add, is it se led by any other canon in the Code. But again, one may turn to canonical tradition for insight.

To be sure, all admit that in talking about popes falling into heresy we are talking a very remote scenario. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome I (1949) n. 340, “This sort of case, given the divine protection of the Church, is considered quite improbable.” Beste, Introductio (1961) 242, “In history no example of this can be found.” And the great Felix Cappello, Summa Iuris I (1949) n. 309, thought that the possibility of a pope falling into public heresy should be “entirely dismissed given the special love of God for the Church of Christ [lest] the Church fall into the greatest danger.”

But Cappello’s confidence (at least in the scope of divine protection against heretical popes) was not shared by his co-religionist, the incomparable Franz Wernz, whose summary of the various canonical schools of thought about the possibility of a papal fall from office due to heresy is instructive. After reviewing canonical norms on loss of papal office due to resignation or insanity, Wernz-Vidal, IUS CANONICUM II (1928), n. 453, considers the impact of personal heresy on the part of a pope (emphasis and citations omi ed): [...]

("A Canonical Primer on Popes and Heresy," by Dr. Ed Peters)

(I omit the long quote from Wernz, which can be read at the linked website)

Both St. Robert Bellarmine, and another theologian of whom we will speak shortly (Suárez), merely *speculated* on this possibility. Yet, both men concluded that the Roman Pontiff could not fall into formal heresy due to Divine assistance.

This is entirely mistaken. Bellarmine and Suarez both held that the Pope could fall into formal heresy. They merely differed on the nature of this. Suarez, following Cajetan, held that a heretical Pope could only be deposed after being judged by the Church. Bellarmine disagreed, and believed that the heretical Pope was ipso facto deposed from his office, even without the judgment of the Church. (Source 1; Source 2)

"It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith."

Gasser, in his relatio, claims that Bellarmine followed Pighius in this opinion. But that Bellarmine held an opinion does not mean that it is a teaching of the Church. You have a long ways to go for that conclusion.

Nevertheless, the broader point is that Bellarmine holds this while simultaneously holding that the Pope could fall into formal heresy. There are different ways to parse this, but I don't believe it is controverted.

"This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter's successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into an error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The Bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: 'If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.'"

This is a remarkable point, and it underscores why Papal indefectibility, even if not *extraordinarily* defined as Papal infallibility, is sententia certa...

Well, no. That Gasser thought the Bishop of Meaux spoke well does not make anything sententia certa. Indeed, you have given no real argument for why you believe that papal indefectibility is sententia certa, and I am wondering if you are confusing Ott's claim about the indefectibility of the Church (which he does label sententia certa) with a claim about the indefectibility of the Pope.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Hello Antonius. I hope you are well.

I feel I must debunk your OP, because it contains a great many errors. I will not address all of them.

First, the received and current teaching of the Church is that a pope can commit formal heresy and thereby be deposed. Some quotes:




(I omit the long quote from Wernz, which can be read at the linked website)


This is entirely mistaken. Bellarmine and Suarez both held that the Pope could fall into formal heresy. They merely differed on the nature of this. Suarez, following Cajetan, held that a heretical Pope could only be deposed after being judged by the Church. Bellarmine disagreed, and believed that the heretical Pope was ipso facto deposed from his office, even without the judgment of the Church. (Source 1; Source 2)


Gasser, in his relatio, claims that Bellarmine followed Pighius in this opinion. But that Bellarmine held an opinion does not mean that it is a teaching of the Church. You have a long ways to go for that conclusion.

Nevertheless, the broader point is that Bellarmine holds this while simultaneously holding that the Pope could fall into formal heresy. There are different ways to parse this, but I don't believe it is controverted.


Well, no. That Gasser thought the Bishop of Meaux spoke well does not make anything sententia certa. Indeed, you have given no real argument for why you believe that papal indefectibility is sententia certa, and I am wondering if you are confusing Ott's claim about the indefectibility of the Church (which he does label sententia certa) with a claim about the indefectibility of the Pope.

But what heresy?
Heresy is error of teaching.

I check actual speeches. They differ than the popular media.
Vatican news gives full speeches.
Most others give snips.

DO I like Pope Francis?
I disagree on many things, but none are heresy... he says teachings cannot change.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But what heresy?
Heresy is error of teaching.

I check actual speeches. They differ than the popular media.
Vatican news gives full speeches.
Most others give snips.

DO I like Pope Francis?
I disagree on many things, but none are heresy... he says teachings cannot change.

He says a great many things. His recent dubia responses are muddy compilations that allow for blessing sin. Oh, without confusing such blessings with marriage of course, but that is unavoidable and now coming to a diocese near you because the pope said both 'no' and 'yes'. Is muddy teaching heresy? What IS pope Francis teaching? Do we now have legitimate blessings for homosexual acts?

 

[Gnarwhal]

He says a great many things. His recent dubia responses are muddy compilations that allow for blessing sin. Oh, without confusing such blessings with marriage of course, but that is unavoidable and now coming to a diocese near you because the pope said both 'no' and 'yes'. Is muddy teaching heresy? What IS pope Francis teaching? Do we now have legitimate blessings for homosexual acts?

Someone recently pointed out how the same thing has gone in the Anglican Communion since they started doing blessings for same sex marriage: the blessing ceremony or ritual or whatever you want to call it, ends up looking no different than an actual wedding. There are rings and flowers and dresses and music and so on and so forth, to the point that "blessing" just becomes synonymous with "wedding" and they are one and the same thing.

In our case that would be even more scandalous because we actually have a real sacrament, and no doubt homosexual Catholics somewhere along the way would start to believe that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony would be conferred on the two involved in a same sex blessing as it would in a normal wedding.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Someone recently pointed out how the same thing has gone in the Anglican Communion since they started doing blessings for same sex marriage: the blessing ceremony or ritual or whatever you want to call it, ends up looking no different than an actual wedding. There are rings and flowers and dresses and music and so on and so forth, to the point that "blessing" just becomes synonymous with "wedding" and they are one and the same thing.

In our case that would be even more scandalous because we actually have a real sacrament, and no doubt homosexual Catholics somewhere along the way would start to believe that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony would be conferred on the two involved in a same sex blessing as it would in a normal wedding.

The Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1920 roundly opposed contraception. The Lambeth Conference of 1930 allowed a tiny exception for contraception. From that tiny exception the whole of Protestant teaching on contraception collapsed, and even most Catholics today can't bring themselves to follow Church teaching on the subject. One little exception for 'difficult cases'. That's all it took.

If this 'blessing' is not roundly opposed and condemned by pope and bishops it will be the new understanding that such things are just fine. They will be 'weddings' with all of the regalia, and a blessing that one couldn't tell the difference between it and a nuptial blessing. But then the new cardinals are telling us that traditional Catholic moral teaching is wrong. So it looks like it will be coming to a diocese near you. I can't fathom that. What is happening?

 

[zippy2006]

But what heresy?

@Reader Antonius is giving the following argument:

1. No Pope can be a formal heretic, or formally teach heresy
2. Francis is a Pope
3. Therefore, Francis cannot be a formal heretic, or formally teach heresy

The thread is about premise (1). It is about whether it is possible for a pope to be a formal heretic or formally teach heresy. As I have argued, it is possible.

Whether Francis is a heretic is a different topic.

 

[zippy2006]

As the Relatio of Gasser states, this debate was to be *settled* with the promulgation of the Ecumenical Council.

Where does it say this? I searched my copy and your link, and neither contain the word "settled."

It would make sense that Vatican I was interested in this issue, because Pastor Aeternus really upped the ante for the problem of a heretical pope. Before Vatican I there was a court of appeal: an ecumenical council. Now, no more.

 

[WarriorAngel]

@Reader Antonius is giving the following argument:

1. No Pope can be a formal heretic, or formally teach heresy
2. Francis is a Pope
3. Therefore, Francis cannot be a formal heretic, or formally teach heresy

The thread is about premise (1). It is about whether it is possible for a pope to be a formal heretic or formally teach heresy. As I have argued, it is possible.

Whether Francis is a heretic is a different topic.

From what I have known/seen/read is 'deposed Popes' were done so for POLITICAL reasons.
If an emperor did not like the Pope he could claim the Pope was not 'officially' Pope.
IE, they claimed he made himself Pope.

Does ANYONE remember Martin l?
He died for refusing to allow heresy from the East?
They consider him deposed though they held him in chains [and also he is a Saint]

 

[zippy2006]

From what I have known/seen/read is 'deposed Popes' were done so for POLITICAL reasons.

Yes, usually. The tricky case is Pope Honorius I, but I don't know enough to comment on it.