An article, now, by James V. Schall, S.J., "On Heretical Popes" (The Catholic Thing, November 11, 2014); and even a "Petition to the Cardinals of the Roman Church regarding the grave improprieties of Pope Francis." (ipetitions, November 11, 2014). Unbelievable. Who would have dreamed of such things appearing in print only several years ago?
And here is Michael Voris promoting, and trying to walk, The Razor's Edge dividing errors of the two opposite extremes:
[Hat tip to L.S.]
8 comments:
Pure Sanity!
More "trads" like Voris
please.
Of course the whole problem with the "heretical" Pope mishigoss is that who judges who is a heretical Pope considering the Pope is judge by nobody save God?
It's just one step away from justifying Protestantism or dissident oriental Church schisms.
After all what is to stop them from saying "Well the Pope contradicted the "orthodox" teaching of Nestorius, St Cyril, Luther, etc.....".
At best Sedes rely on a text issued by the Pope that at best says if the Pope is already a formal but secret heretic upon his discovery as such his elect would e invalid.
The Pope who issued this decree(whose name escapes me) suspected (probably wrongly) one of his Cardinals whom he did not fancy was a secret Lutheran. He didn't want the guy to succeed him as Pope and he succeed.
Unless someone can produce evidence any of the Popes since Pius XII being secret members of the Anglican Church or film of him saying the Muslim Shahada in a Mosque in front of two male Muslim witnesses all this talk of a "heretical Pope" is tedious.
Ben,
The idea that nobody can "judge" a pope save God properly means, beyond the notion that nobody can discern the motives of his heart, that nobody in the Church has a higher authority than him by which to depose him, all things being equal.
This notion is often assumed by some to imply that no inferior cleric or laity can express the belief that the pope is mistaken in some matter. This is clearly wrong. The pope can be excommunicated for mortal sin or apostasy just like anyone can, and can even be deposed if there was an irregularity in his election. If he committed a crime, he could be imprisoned by secular authorities just like anyone else. I'm not sure what canonical protocol would require if the pope suffered severe dementia.
None of this means that a loyal son of the Church should be anything less than respectful of the Holy Father. It just means that there are some things the pope, just like any of us, can do to get himself into trouble.
>The idea that nobody can "judge" a pope save God properly means, beyond the notion that nobody can discern the motives of his heart, that nobody in the Church has a higher authority than him by which to depose him, all things being equal.
Short réponse: Yup.
>This notion is often assumed by some to imply that no inferior cleric or laity can express the belief that the pope is mistaken in some matter. This is clearly wrong.
As long as he is not a disrespectful Yutz about it then I have no beef.
>The pope can be excommunicated for mortal sin or apostasy just like anyone can,
But no Pope has committed apostasy. But I don’t see how he could be judged and deposed even for mortal sin. The Bad Popes had to die for us to get rid of them. John XI was “deposed” by a Synod but the legality of that is questionable (even thought John XI was morally a revolting person).
He was “killed” by “accident" while hunting on the very day of the Synod.
>and can even be deposed if there was an irregularity in his election.
All this is theory for something that has not happened in 2,000 years. At best Popes had been condemned posthumously for bad governance but not for heresy.
>If he committed a crime, he could be imprisoned by secular authorities just like anyone else.
I would not be against that.
>I'm not sure what canonical protocol would require if the pope suffered severe dementia.
Then it was Providence Benedict choose to become what Francis calls an Institution.
>None of this means that a loyal son of the Church should be anything less than respectful of the Holy Father. It just means that there are some things the pope, just like any of us, can do to get himself into trouble.
Yes.
Ben, I see you're still at it, even if you've toned down your rhetorical blasts a tad.
Wonder of wonders: I've found myself actually in agreement with most of your replies above to PP: you're going to find yourself in hot water dude! People are going to start thinking, heh, that you've done gone traddy!
There's one point where your reply requires some finessing, however. You say: "All this is theory for something that has not happened in 2,000 years. At best Popes had been condemned posthumously for bad governance but not for heresy."
Well, yes and no. Catholic apologists like Karl Keating and others have gone JESUITICAL tying themselves in knots trying to show that no pope has ever been condemned for FORMAL heresy. Yet there is no question popes have been condemned for MATERIAL heresy -- for actually maintaining and declaring heretical ideas.
The distinction is tidy in theory, though it tends to blur in practice. The sixth Ecumenical Council repeatedly condemned Pope Honorius of heresy (on March 28, 681, again on August 9, 681, and again on September 16, 681), and Pope Leo II anathematized him in a letter to the Emperor confirming the decrees of that Council. J. Von Dollinger himself confirms this.
300 years prior to Honorius, we find Pope Liberius. Although he was presumably reconciled to orthodoxy before his death, he is notorious for promoting Arian heresy and is remembered as a betrayer of the faith, and his name was invoked by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1870).
Even in much later times, we see examples of Popes flirting with heretical notions, like the 14th-century Pope John XXII, who is referenced explicitly by the later Pope Adrian VI, who writes:
"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII." (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908)
It is a singular grace of God that the Church has been protected from officially teaching heresy throughout its long sojourn; yet this fact does not suffice to abjure her pontiffs from any responsibility for promoting material heresy, much less sowing doctrinal confusion among the faithful.
Nothing less than such confusion is what Cardinal Burke pointed to, despite all protestations to the contrary that he is nothing more than the Pope's obedient servant, when he declared that "great harm" was done in the recent October synod in Rome by his refusal to take a clear position distinguishing truth from error.
Like the possibility of hell, the possibility of at least a materially heretical pope is something which, as Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., says (in his recent article in The Catholic Thing, Nov. 11, 2014), an issue that must be "faced squarely and judged fairly."
@Charles
Hello again.
Some comments to highlight your fine comments.
>Well, yes and no. Catholic apologists like Karl Keating and others have gone JESUITICAL tying themselves in knots trying to show that no pope has ever been condemned for FORMAL heresy.
Well Keating has succeeded & I read all this stuff before. Long ago.
>Yet there is no question popes have been condemned for MATERIAL heresy -- for actually maintaining and declaring heretical ideas.
material heresy refers to an opinion that is objectively contradictory to the teachings of the Church, and as such heretical, but which is uttered by a person without the subjective knowledge of its being so. A person who holds a material heresy may therefore not be a "heretic" in the strict sense. Material heresy is distinguished from "formal heresy", i.e. a heretic opinion proposed deliberately by a person who is aware of its being against the doctrine of the Church.
>The distinction is tidy in theory, though it tends to blur in practice. The sixth Ecumenical Council repeatedly condemned Pope Honorius of heresy (on March 28, 681, again on August 9, 681, and again on September 16, 681), and Pope Leo II anathematized him in a letter to the Emperor confirming the decrees of that Council. J. Von Dollinger himself confirms this.
Dollinger rejected the dogma of Papal Infallibility & was himself excommunicated. He was Hang Kung before hans Kung.
If there is a blur then that only favors the JESUITICAL approach.
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope-honorius-i
Quote Pope Leo II "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”…………..
PartII
>300 years prior to Honorius, we find Pope Liberius. Although he was presumably reconciled to orthodoxy before his death, he is notorious for promoting Arian heresy and is remembered as a betrayer of the faith, and his name was invoked by opponents of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1870).
Of course he was also tortured by Constantine’s grandson who was Emperor at the time an a notorious Arian heretic. He showed cowardice in the face of persecution and he accede to demands to persecute St Athananus. He signed an ambiguous creed under duress.
>http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope-liberius
>Even in much later times, we see examples of Popes flirting with heretical notions, like the 14th-century Pope John XXII, who is referenced explicitly by the later Pope Adrian VI, who writes:
>"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII." (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908)
John XXII made heterodox statements during a sermon which he formally retracted publicly.
>It is a singular grace of God that the Church has been protected from officially teaching heresy throughout its long sojourn; yet this fact does not suffice to abjure her pontiffs from any responsibility for promoting material heresy, much less sowing doctrinal confusion among the faithful.
But it is in the end the judgement of the Church authority that must be brought to bear not the laity & not the Catholic blogs.
>Nothing less than such confusion is what Cardinal Burke pointed to, despite all protestations to the contrary that he is nothing more than the Pope's obedient servant, when he declared that "great harm" was done in the recent October synod in Rome by his refusal to take a clear position distinguishing truth from error.
Cardinal Burke says:“Certain media simply want to keep portraying me as living my life as an opponent to Pope Francis,” he said. “I am not at all. I’ve been serving him in the Apostolic Signatura and in other ways I continue to serve him.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/11/05/Exclusive-Cardinal-Burke-Church-Risks-Serious-Tensions-in%20Months-Ahead
>Like the possibility of hell, the possibility of at least a materially heretical pope is something which, as Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., says (in his recent article in The Catholic Thing, Nov. 11, 2014), an issue that must be "faced squarely and judged fairly.”
But it seem such a Pope can only be dealt with after he is dead or no longer Pope.
Cheers.
We have to agree to disagree about Karl Keating's success in exonerating some of these earlier popes of material and or formal heresy. I will agree that he presented a valiant effort, but there's too much he fudges, as I think there is with you.
Catholic apologists are rarely if ever capable of living with cognitive dissonance. In their quest for "the facts," they often construct a tidy garden with well-cultivated paths and hedgerows, which, however, does not always conform to the rough pattern of the reality.
Post a Comment