If a Pope becomes a public heretic, does he remain Pope ?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

If a Pope ever publicly fell from the Catholic Faith, would he cease to be Pope? Yours, sinc.

-- Bernard (bluyben@telusplanet.net), November 29, 2004

Answers

Bernard,

I assume you are referring to a pope attempting to make a statement that would meet all the requirements for an infallible declaration except that it would be heresy. The idea that a pope could become a heretic and declare heretical doctrine as the truth after being installed as Pope, goes against the idea of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I (I think it was Vatican I) and against Jesus' promise to Peter that upon him Jesus will build his church and that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I have seen some Church writings that state a heretic cannot become Pope. I don't recall if it states he can repent of his heresy first and be fully united with the Church and then become Pope. Either way, that is a different matter. That's about all I know regarding this particular example, until I do some more research. I'm sure someone else around here can give you the real skinny on the exact encyclicals or ecumenical council that covers the case of heretics becoming pope. My guess is that the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow a heretic to become pope. That's just my humble opinion.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 29, 2004.


bernard,

if we are defining a heretic as one who promulgates false teachings over the instruction of truth, then the scenario you give is not possible. The office of the papacy is sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit. No pope can teach heresy... NONE. several popes have died mysteriously before giving an infallable declaration, lending suspect to what they would have proclaimed, but the very concept that God would fail in His promise to protect the church is beyond thought.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 29, 2004.


" NONE. several popes have died mysteriously before giving an infallable declaration, lending suspect to what they would have proclaimed"

Paul h, where would I find more information on these Popes who have mysteriously died? Thanks.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 02, 2004.


One was Pope Sixtus V, who decided he was going to order a revision of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. He appointed several prominent and talented translators to the task, but after they had worked on the project for over a year, they showed their progress to the Pope, who was displeased with their efforts (perhaps "furious" would be more accurate). The Pope then proclaimed that he would personally do the revision. He worked on it for a year and a half, but He simply was not a master of either Latin or Scripture, and when he finally presented his translation to the Cardinals for their input, they were horrified by what they read. The thing was full of translational errors, omissions and additions, some of which changed the meaning of the text sufficiently to constitute heretical statements. But Sixtus was determined to push forward. He drafted a papal bull announcing the promulgation of his text as the approved Catholic version, and scheduled a solemn high Mass during which he would sign the document, thereby promulgating a heretical text as the official teaching of the Church. But the week preceding the planned occasion, he suddenly died, in spite of having been in excellent health up to that point. The copies of his Bible which had already been printed and bound were destroyed, and the bull was never signed.

When we say that the Pope cannot promulgate untruth as binding doctrine, we don't just mean that he wouldn't do that because he is such a holy man. God simply will not allow it to happen, and will do whatever is necessary to prevent it. His Church WILL teach the truth, no matter what, because He has proclaimed that it will be so. And thank God for that gift. Our salvation depends upon it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.


Which goes to show, a death Pope is preferable to a heretical Pope.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.



Yes. However, a dead Pope is possible. A heretical Pope is not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2004.

Unless you ask a Sedivaticantist...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 02, 2004.

"Yes. However, a dead Pope is possible. A heretical Pope is not."

This one is both.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 02, 2004.


Emerald is always good for a chuckle.

-- Babs (Barbie@doll.com), December 03, 2004.

Ho-Hum, good old Pope Honorius, always the last resort for Fundamentalists attempting to attack papal infallibility. Pope Honorius lived at the time the Monothelite heresy was gaining adherents. As Pope it was his duty to speak out forcefully against this false doctrine. He failed to do so. In addition, he wrote a poorly worded, rather ambiguous letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, attempting to respond to an equally ambiguous letter received from the Patriarch concerning the heresy, which the Patriarch endorsed. The ambiguity and lack of forcefulness of Honorius's letter was unfortunately used by the Monothelites to strengthen their movement by suggesting that the Pope was a supporter. Honorius was not very careful in accurately and fully expressing the position of the Church, and not very straightforward in his condemnation of the heresy. However, none of the above could categorize him personally as a heretic - a categorical impossibility since he was the Vicar of Christ. Failure to speak out forcefully in condemnation of a heresy does not make one a heretic. Personally holding a view that is objectively heretical does not make one a heretic, and anyway there is no evidence that Pope Honorius held such a view. And nothing expressed in a personal letter, whether misinterpreted by enemies of the Church or even accurately interpreted, could make one a heretic. Pope Honorius would have been a heretic if he had officially promulgated Monothelitism as doctrinal truth binding on the universal Church. He didn't even come close. It is true that after his death he was among those declared anathema by the 6th Council of Constantinople in its condemnation of Monothelitism; however, the decrees of that Council, like any Council, are not valid until confirmed by the Pope. Before Pope Leo II confirmed the findings of the Council, he modified the references to Pope Honorius, specifically to make it clear that Honorius had not supported the heresy of Monothelitism, but was only negligent in his duty to actively suppress it. Negligence, yes. Heresy? Not even close.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 03, 2004.


Thanks Paul M but was Pope Sixtus V the only one who died mysteriously in a case such as that?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), December 04, 2004.

Was there not popes who were not allowed to speak heresy after being elected. By force on the Holy Spirits part. Not by death...

-- Trademark-web name (Priestlyfellow@hotmail.com), January 08, 2005.

Actually, I just learned about Pope Honorius in Medieval Church History.

He's an interesting case. He was actually one of the more virtuous and reforming Popes in history; the way he was treated in history was most unfortunate.

Although I believe that Honorius was not a heretic, did not teach heresy, I believe the teaching of Vatican I that no Pope had ever taught heresy, I am nevertheless unimpressed by some of the arguments in favor of this position.

First, was he a heretic? Well, the most obvious answer is no; even if we entertained the idea that his letters affirmed monothelism, monothelism hadn't been condemned in his lifetime, was not known to collapse into monophysitism, and he was never tried, alive anyway.

The Fathers of the 6th General Council actually exhumed his body and put his corpse on trial. They demanded that his corpse deny monothelism, and upon receiving no answer, cut off its fingers and thew it into the river.

Of course in those days people fully expected the corpse to talk and redeem his name. The condemnation really has no substance.

Unlike others, I'm ready to admit that Honorius believed, at the time, that monothelism was an orthodox answer against Nestorianism, and probably expressed such in his letters. But those letters weren't meant as teaching--more like the writings of one theologian to another. Now, a Pope can act as Pope or he can act as a theologian.

If John Paul II's books of poety contained a heresy, he wouldn't cease to be a Pope and he wouldn't invalidate the teaching of Vatican I.

Considering his record, Honorius probably would have proclaimed orthodoxy if he were alive for his trial.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 08, 2005.


Pope John Paul II is skating dangerously close to being a heretic. "Catholic Church" means "Universal Church;" not "world religion." Read your catechism; read your canon law; read your history--and look at the travesites that have taken place since he was elected. Saint (Pope) Pius X predicted this very thing years ago (and no; I'm not SSPX). We've been sliding down this slippery slope since the 1940s.

-- true catholic (truecatholic@anonymous.net), February 09, 2005.

You're a servant of the devil, john smith, AKA ''true catholic'' (my eye.) You aren't fooling anybody.

There isn't a ''world religion,'' it's something you've hatched up from hell. We're with Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church, not your bogus world church.

Go and report to your demon master: ''Nobody listened to me. What shall I do next?''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.



Mr C

I am not the guy that posted that message. I don't know who he is but , Well I won't say anymore.

I look in on this forum but I do not post here anymore. It is not worth my time or effort.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), February 09, 2005.


OK, Smith-- But you can be proud of him/her.

A fine John Smith clone, with every earmark. The speech pattern complete with moans and groans. With the usual suspects, too; as per Smith's denunciations.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2005.


Nope; this guy is not me but I am proud of what he says.

Were I still posting here I probably would have said it.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), February 10, 2005.


''Were I still posting ???''

Yeah, like you haven't just posted. And PROUD. Of such drivel:

''John Paul II is skating dangerously close to being a heretic.''

Satan is dangerously close to you and ''true catholic in name only.'' Are you proud of that? Satan sure is.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2005.


Moderator..I have been praying for sqda ever since he began posting on the forum..others have been extremly kind to him..in the past few days he has truly gone over the top, as evidenced by this post. Others have asked for his removal and now I am asking for it too..enough is enough.

I will continue to pray for him..yet it's time for him to leave the forum.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 11, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ