We will now
begin to discuss the questions related to papal heresy and the loss of office
for a heretical Pope. In this chapter, we will begin by considering two related
questions: (1) Can a Pope fall into personal heresy internally? (2) Can a Pope
profess errors and heresy externally? It is the common opinion among
theologians that a Pope can fall into personal heresy (internally), and even
public and notorious heresy (externally). The Church has never taught that a
Pope is impeccable (unable to sin), and there are historical examples discussed
below where Popes have indeed taught errors – even errors that have been
condemned by the Church and are now qualified as heretical. While the charism
(supernatural gift) of infallibility will prevent a Pope from erring when he
meets the necessary conditions, according to Our Lord’s promise to St. Peter
(cf. Mt. 16:18-19), this charism will in no way prevent the Pope from teaching
error or heresy when he operates outside of these limited parameters, nor will
it prevent him from committing actual sin. Consequently, infallibility will not
prevent a Pope from committing the personal sin of heresy, nor will it prevent
the Pope from teaching heresy publicly, when the conditions for infallibility
are not met. The common opinion that a Pope can become a heretic is taught in
the consecration sermon of Pope Innocent III, who in 1198 said: “Truly, he [the
Pope] should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in
his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is
judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be
judged by men or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if, for example, he
should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already
judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its
savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled underfoot by
men.’”1 The Abbé de Nantes provides another quote from the same Pope:
“The great
Innocent III comments on this, applying it humbly to himself: ‘For me the faith
is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the
slightest sin committed in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the
Church.’”2 Pope Adrian VI (1522-1523) also stated that “it is beyond question”
that a Pope can err in matters of faith, and even “teach heresy”: “I say: 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 judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics.
The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)...”3 Accordingly, theologians
throughout the centuries have held that a Pope can become a heretic.4 For
example, the sixteenth century Dominican, Domingo de Soto (d. 1560), taught:
“(…) though some masters of our time sustain that the Pope cannot be a heretic
in any way, the common opinion is however the opposite one. For though he might
not be able to err as Pope – that is, he could not define an error as an
article of faith, because the Holy Spirit will not permit it – nevertheless as
a private person he can err in faith, in the same way that he can commit other
sins, because he is not impeccable.”5
In his
famous book The Catholic Controversy, the great Doctor of the Church, St.
Francis de Sales (d. 1622), wrote: “Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did
not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and
was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in
his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps
Honorius was.”6 Referring to the teaching of Pope Innocent III, Mattheus Conte
a Coronata also said: “It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a
private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would
contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never
promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is
possible.”7 In the Manual of Dogmatic Theology (1906) by Wilhelm and Scannell,
we also read: [T]he Pope’s authority would not be injured if, when not
exercising it (extra judicium), he professed a false doctrine… The
Infallibility and Indefectibility of the Church and of the Faith require on the
part of the Head [i.e., the Pope], that … the law of Faith should always be
infallibly proposed; but this does not require the infallibility and
indefectibility of his own interior Faith and of his extrajudicial
utterances.”8 The Jesuit theologian Fr. Paul Laymann (d. 1635), who was
considered “one of the greatest moralists and canonists of his time,”9
explained that it is more probable than not that a Pope could fall into
notorious heresy: “It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns
his own person, could fall into heresy, even a notorious one, by reason of
which he would deserve to be deposed by the Church, or rather declared to be
separated from her. … The proof of this assertion is that neither Sacred
Scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers indicates that such a privilege
[i.e., being preserved from heresy when not defining a doctrine] was granted by
Christ to the Supreme Pontiff: therefore the privilege is not to be asserted.
The first part of the proof is shown from the fact that the promises made by
Christ to St. Peter cannot be transferred to the other Supreme Pontiffs insofar
as they are private persons, but only as the successor of Peter in the pastoral
power of teaching, etc. The latter part is proven from the fact that it is
rather the contrary that one finds in the writings of the Fathers and in
decrees: not indeed as if the Roman Pontiffs were at any time heretics de facto
(for one could hardly show that); but it was the persuasion that it could
happen that they fall into heresy and that, therefore, if such a thing should seem
to have happened, it would pertain to the other bishops to examine and give a
judgment on the matter; as one can see in the Sixth Synod, Act 13; the Seventh
Synod, last Act; the eight Synod, Act 7 in the epistle of [Pope] Hadrian; and
in the fifth Roman Council under Pope Symmachus.”10 Before proceeding, permit
us a brief detour. We have already noted the deference that Sedevacantists give
to the ecclesiology of St. Robert Bellarmine. As we will further demonstrate in
the next chapter, their deference is based upon a misunderstanding of
Bellarmine’s teaching that a heretical Pope automatically “ceases to be Pope”
without a declaration from the Church (Bellarmine was indeed referring to the
divine consequence for the crime of heresy, but after having been determined by
the Church and not private judgment – more on this later). However, Bellarmine
also believed that a Pope could not actually fall into personal heresy, even
though Popes Innocent III and Adrian VI expressly taught the contrary. The
Sedevacantists generally side with Bellarmine, and not Popes Innocent and
Adrian. Why? Perhaps the Sedevacantists side with Bellarmine because this
position (that a Pope cannot fall into heresy) makes their case much easier to
“prove,” since a “hereticizing” Pope could certainly be considered by a
reasonable person to have lost interior faith. This is a common opinion among
many traditional Catholics, to whom it seems likely that the Vatican II Popes
lost the faith internally, due to their many words and actions which render
them suspect of heresy and propagators of heresy. Accordingly, if the
Sedevacantist can convince these Catholics that a true Pope cannot lose the
faith, then these Catholics would be left to conclude that the conciliar Popes
are not true Popes. Many Catholics have been deceived by this type of
argumentation. Further, because Sedevacantists base their thesis primarily upon
the teaching of Bellarmine (who said a manifestly heretical Pope automatically
loses his office), many of them exalt Bellarmine to a “super-Magisterial”
status, and thus follow his position (that a Pope cannot be a heretic) over
that of Popes Innocent and Adrian (who said a Pope can be a heretic). And they
defend Bellarmine’s opinion almost as if it were a dogma, even though
Bellarmine himself admitted that the common opinion was contrary to his own. To
show the extent to which Sedevacantists go in defending Bellarmine, we can look
to the example of the lay Sedevacantist apologist John Lane. Lane has gone so
far as to publicly declare that the quote from Pope Adrian VI, who taught that
a Pope can “teach heresy,” is a fabrication. Lane even impugned the good name
of Fr. Dominique Boulet who used this citation from Pope Adrian in his article
“Is That Chair Vacant? A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism.” In response to the
article, Lane rashly accused Fr. Boulet of being “deceived by fraudulent quotes
which he has carelessly lifted from some place unknown.”11 On his website, Lane
further denigrates the priest with his smug comment: “Poor Fr. Boulet - he
literally grabbed quotes from the Net, it seems, and cobbled them together.”12
When Lane himself later discovered that the “unknown” sixteenth century
citation was not simply grabbed from the Net, but quoted in an early twentieth
century book (published in 1904),13 Lane, with no evidence whatsoever, claimed
that the quotation included in the book had been “invented” by the author
(another rash and baseless accusation). Because the 1904 book had been placed
on the Index, Mr. Lane used this fact to support his assertion that the
quotation was “invented” by the author (as if the book being on the Index in
any way implies that the quote was invented). When the same quotation was later
cited by Robert Siscoe in an article published in The Remnant newspaper,14 Mr.
Lane referred to it on his website as the “invented quote from Pope Adrian VI,
taken from a book [the 1904 book] which St. Pius X put on the Index.” Lane then
accused the non-Sedevacantist authors who have cited the quotation of being
“complete charlatans without the slightest affection for the moral law or truth
itself.”15 In order to recover the good name of Fr. Boulet, and any others
tarnished by the false accusations of John Lane, we provide an even more
complete version of the quotation, in the original Latin, taken from the
writings of an author who died two centuries before Mr. Lane claims the
quotation was “invented” (which proves that the quotation was not “invented” by
the author of the 1904 book, as Mr. Lane claims). The quotation from Pope
Adrian VI was quoted by Bishop Bossuet (1627- 1704) in his Complete Works
edited and published in Paris in 1841: “Ad secundum principale de facto
Gregorii, dico primo quod si per Ecclesiam Romanam intelligatur caput ejus,
puta Pontifex, Certum est quod possit errare, etiam in his, quae tangent fidem,
haeresim per suam determinationem aut Decretalem asserendo; plures enim fuere
Pontifices Romani haeretici. Item et novissime fertur de Joanne XXII, quod
publice docuit, declaravit, et ab omnibus teneri mandavit, quod animas purgatae
ante finale judicium non habent stolam, quae est clara et facialis visio
Dei.”16 Since Mr. Lane did not hesitate to accuse those who cited the quotation
(which he falsely claimed to have been “invented” and first published in 1904)
as being “complete charlatans” who lack “the slightest affection for the moral
law or truth itself,” we hope that he offers a public apology for his rash
judgement and slandering of the good name of Fr. Boulet.17 If not, one might be
led to conclude that it is the public slanderer himself (Mr. Lane) who lacks
“the slightest affection for the moral law or truth itself.” Having cleared up
this point, which we hope will help serve to restore the good name of Fr.
Boulet, we now return to our consideration of whether a Pope can fall into
heresy. While it is true that St. Bellarmine personally held to what he called
the “pious opinion” of Albert Pighius,18 namely, that a Pope could not fall
into personal heresy, Bellarmine himself, as we noted, admitted that “the
common opinion is the contrary.”19
Pastor
Aeternus
Several
years ago, a lengthy article was published20 which attempted to interpret
Chapter IV of Vatican I’s Constitution, Pastor Aeternus as teaching that a Pope
cannot fall into personal heresy (cannot lose the virtue of faith). The author
essentially argued that the First Vatican Council raised to the level of dogma
the opinion of St. Bellarmine and Albert Pighius (who both held the minority
opinion that a Pope cannot lose his personal faith) and that, consequently, the
contrary opinion can no longer be defended. Without getting into a detailed
analysis of this author’s novel interpretation of Vatican I (which, as far as
we know, is shared by no one), suffice it to say that his private
interpretation of Pastor Aeternus directly contradicts the official
interpretation of the document given during the Council. In his famous four-hour
speech, delivered during Vatican I, Bishop Vincent Gasser, the official Relator
(spokesman) for the Deputation of the Faith, stated that the Pighius/Bellarmine
opinion was precisely not what the document intended to teach. During the
speech, which provided the Church’s official interpretation of the document to
the Council Fathers, Bishop Gasser responded to what he called “a most grave
objection that has been made from this podium, namely, that we wish to make the
extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic Faith.
Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of
an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered
well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues
that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of
a certain school to the dignity of dogma…?”21 What was this extreme opinion
Bishop Grasser spoke of? He goes on to explain: “As far as the doctrine set
forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise
an extreme opinion, namely, that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For
the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls ‘pious and
probable,’ was 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.”22 After quoting the text in which St. Bellarmine agrees with the
opinion of Albert Pighius, Bishop Gasser concluded by saying “it is evident
that the doctrine in the proposed Chapter [of Pastor Aeternus] is not that of
Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school…”23 Cardinal Camilo
Mazzella (1833-1900), who served as the Prefect of the Congregations of the
Index, of Studies, and of Rites, directly addressed the same point. He wrote:
“(…) it is one thing that the Roman Pontiff cannot teach a heresy when speaking
ex cathedra (what the council of the Vatican defined); and it is another thing
that he cannot fall into heresy, that is become a heretic as a private person.
On this last question the Council said nothing, and the theologians and
canonists are not in agreement among themselves in regard to this.”24 Suffice
it to say that the teaching of Popes Innocent III and Adrian VI (that a Pope
can fall into personal or even public heresy) is not contrary to the teaching
of the First Vatican Council. Even if one were to argue that Popes Innocent and
Adrian were teaching as private theologians and not in their capacity as Popes,
their teaching would still be considered the common theological opinion and
express the mind of the Church. This explains why the dogmatic manual of Msgr.
Van Noort, which was published many decades after the Council, noted that “some
competent theologians do concede that the Pope when not speaking ex cathedra
could fall into formal heresy.”25 Clearly, neither Msgr. Van Noort, nor the
other “competent theologians” he is referring to, considered this teaching to
be at variance with Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus. Papal Infallibility There is
a great deal of confusion over the issue of papal infallibility, by which God
prevents the Pope from erring when he defines doctrines for the universal
Church. Many erroneously believe that the charism would prevent a man raised to
the pontificate from erring when speaking on matters of faith and morals. In
reality, the charism of infallibility only prevents the Pope from erring in
very limited and narrowly defined circumstances. It is not a habitually active
charism of the papal office. As we saw in Chapter 1, infallibility is not to be
confused with inspiration, which is a positive divine influence that moves and
controls a human agent in what he says or writes; nor is it to be confused with
Revelation, which is the communication of some truth by God through means which
are beyond the ordinary course of nature.26 Infallibility pertains to
safeguarding and explaining the truths already revealed by God, and contained
within the Deposit of Faith,27 which was closed with the death of the last
Apostle.28 Because infallibility is only a negative charism (gratia gratis
data), it does not inspire a Pope to teach what is true or even defend revealed
truths, nor does it “make the Pope’s will the ultimate standard of truth and
goodness,”29 but simply prevents him from teaching error under certain limited
conditions. During Bishop Gasser’s address at Vatican I, he said: “In no sense
is pontifical infallibility absolute, because absolute infallibility belongs to
God alone, Who is the first and essential truth, and Who is never able to
deceive or be deceived. All other infallibility, as communicated for a specific
purpose, has its limits and its conditions under which it is considered to be
present. The same is valid in reference to the infallibility of the Roman
Pontiff. For this infallibility is bound by certain limits and conditions...”30
The First Vatican Council fixed the conditions for papal infallibility when the
Pope exercises his Solemn or Extraordinary (Pontifical) Magisterium: “We teach
and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex
cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher
of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a
doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he
possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that
infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining
doctrine concerning faith or morals.”31 Here we see that the divine assistance
of Christ is present only when a Pope, (1) using his supreme apostolic
authority in the exercise of his office as teacher of all Christians, (2)
defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, (3) to be held by the universal
Church. Such definitive acts of the Extraordinary Papal Magisterium are
relatively rare, and generally issued to combat an error or settle a doctrinal
controversy. Fr. Nau explains: “But this method of presentation, sometimes
called the extraordinary Magisterium, is only an exceptional occurrence. It is
most often used to reply to an error, or put an end to a controversy or, where
the intention is to obviate in advance all possible doubts by solemnly
pronouncing that a truth which is already admitted is now made a dogma of the
faith.”32 At the First Vatican Council, Cardinal Franzelin emphasized the same
point in the context of the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium when exercised
through ecumenical councils: “It was never the aim of the holy Councils, in
proposing the definition of a doctrine, to set forth Catholic doctrine in
itself, in so far as it was already possessed by the faithful in complete
tranquility – the aim is always to make clear the errors which are threatening
some doctrine and to exclude them by a declaration of the truth which is
directly opposed to such errors.”33 With this as a background, let us now
examine Pastor Aeternus’ three required elements for papal infallibility, when
exercised through the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium, under the following
headings:
1. Matters
of Faith or Morals The first condition for papal infallibility is that it is
limited to doctrinal definitions or final definitive statements concerning
faith or morals. This scope of papal infallibility is the same with respect to
any other organ of infallibility in the Church (e.g., ecumenical councils).34
Theologians distinguish between primary and secondary objects of infallibility.
The primary object of infallibility consists of the truths that have been
formally revealed by God, being contained within the sources of revelation –
namely, Scripture or Tradition – and extends to both positive and negative
decisions of a definitive nature. Positive decisions include such things as
dogmatic decrees of a council, ex cathedra statements from a Pope, and official
creeds of the Church. Negative decisions consist of “the determination and
rejection of such errors as are opposed to the teaching of Revelation.”35 When
the Church definitively proposes for belief a truth on faith or morals that has
been formally revealed by God, it must be believed with divine and Catholic
faith. Divine and Catholic faith is faith in the authority of God revealing and
the infallible Church teaching.36 The secondary object of infallibility
includes those matters which, although not formally revealed, are connected
with and intimately related to the revealed Deposit. The secondary object
includes such things as theological conclusions (inferences deduced from two
premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason) and
dogmatic facts (contingent historical facts). These are so closely related to
revealed truths that they are said to be virtually contained within the
revealed Deposit. With varying degrees of certitude, theologians also list
universal disciplines and the canonizations of saints within this category
(which we will address in Chapter 14 and 16, respectively). Van Noort explains
that the secondary objects of infallibility “come within the purview of
infallibility, not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed
truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only
secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this
sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.”37
Secondary objects of infallibility which have been definitively proposed by the
Church are held with ecclesiastical faith. Ecclesiastical faith is based on the
authority of the Church teaching, not on the authority of God revealing.38 It
is de fide that the Church speaks infallibly when issuing a definitive and
binding declaration on revealed truths (the primary object); but before the
First Vatican Council could rule with certainty on whether or not the Church
can make an infallible pronouncement on secondary objects, the Council was
halted by the Franco-Prussian War, and the subsequent invasion of Rome, and it
was never reconvened. The Church has never ruled definitively on whether
infallibility embraces the secondary objects. For this reason, the position
that the Church can teach infallibly on secondary objects is not de fide (of
the faith), but is only considered theologically certain (sententia certa). Van
Noort qualifies the canonization of saints by the lesser degree of certitude
known as the common opinion.39 To conclude this point, the object of
infallibility consists of doctrines concerning faith and morals that have been
revealed by God (primary object), and matters that are intimately related to the
revealed Deposit (secondary object). It is de fide (of the faith) that the
Church speaks infallibly with respect to the former, and it is qualified as
theologically certain that the Church’s infallibility embraces the latter, at
least to some extent, with the exception of the canonization of saints, which
was only qualified by some as the common opinion prior to Vatican II (and, as
we will see in Chapter 16, may no longer be the common opinion of today).
2. Doctrines
Defined for the Universal Church The second condition for papal infallibility
is the clear intent to define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held
by the universal Church. The Pope commits the authority Christ granted to him
only to the degree in which he intends to do so. If a Pope merely teaches a
doctrine, yet does so without intending to issue a doctrinal definition for the
universal Church, this condition is not satisfied. Consequently, the
possibility of error is not excluded. Furthermore, the Pope must provide a
definition of doctrine to which the faithful can intellectually assent. A
definition is a clear statement of belief, a proposition which can be read,
understood, and definitively held. If the Pope fails to provide an actual
“definition,” then such an act would clearly not fit the narrowly defined
parameters of infallibility as defined in Pastor Aeternus.40 Today, for
example, we hear that we must accept ecumenism, collegiality, religious
liberty, freedom of conscience, the “spirit of Vatican II”, etc. without ever
receiving a clear definition of what these terms mean. This is one of the
distinguishing characteristics of Modernism, which abhors clarity and thrives
in the murky waters of ambiguity and undefined terminology. But undefined or ambiguous
expressions are not doctrinal definitions. When Pius IX defined the dogma of
the Immaculate Conception, he didn’t simply say “we declare, pronounce and
define that all Catholics must believe in the Immaculate Conception,” and then
leave Catholics with the job of figuring out precisely what the term meant.
After using the term twenty six times in the Apostolic Constitution, when it
came to the section in which the doctrine was defined, he explained precisely
what is meant. He wrote: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her
conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view
of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free
from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to
be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”41 The same clarity is
required for infallibility to be engaged during a council. For example, when
the Council of Trent defined the doctrine of transubstantiation, it defined
precisely what is meant so that Catholics would know precisely what must be
believed. The Council declared: “By the consecration of the bread and wine
there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the
substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine
into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has
fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV).42
The Council then anathematized anyone who denied this doctrine. “If anyone
denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly,
really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He
is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema” (Session
XIII, Canon I).43 This shows the way in which the Church defines a doctrine. If
a Pope or council fails to define – to provide a clear and definitive
explanation of what must be believed - infallibility is not engaged. When the
First Vatican Council defined the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, it
referred to Our Lord’s words in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 16, as a
basis for the dogmatic definition – “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”
(v.18).44 Note that in the very next verse, Our Lord says to St. Peter, “And I
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt
bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven” (v.19). We thus see a
connection between “the gates of hell” and St. Peter’s “binding” authority.
From this we can see that one of the guarantees associated with this divine
promise is that St. Peter and his successors will never “bind” the Church to
heresy. This is because the “gates of hell” refers to heresy and heretics. For
example, Pope Vigilius says “…we bear in mind what was promised about the holy
Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these
we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”45 Pope St. Leo IX also
says: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon
Peter…because by the gates of hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics
which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”46 St. Thomas
Aquinas also says: “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to
silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of
hell.”47 Thus, whether the “tongues” and “disputations” of heretics attack the
Church from without or within (even by the tongue of the Pope himself), Christ
will never allow the heresy to prevail against the Church, which would happen
if the Pope “bound” the faithful to the heresy by imposing it as a matter of
faith to be believed by the Church. But, as we have noted, to be protected by
infallibility, the Pope’s binding authority must be invoked intentionally and
consciously - otherwise the act of binding cannot properly be said to have
taken place. Regarding the mode of expression for an infallible ex cathedra
pronouncement, there is no specific formula required, nor is any type of
solemnity necessary. What is necessary, however, is the Pope’s clear intention
of giving a definitive and universally binding decision.48 This condition of
infallibility also applies to the Pope whether acting alone, or within the
context of an ecumenical council. What this means is that it is possible for a
papal encyclical, or even a document issued by a general council of the Church
that has been ratified by a Pope, to contain error, as long as the Pope (or
council) did not intend to bind the Church to a doctrinal definition. Moreover,
even when infallibility is engaged, it does not necessarily cover an entire
document, but only the specific definitions, or definitive decisions, contained
therein. The following is taken from the pre-Vatican II manual of dogmatic
theology by Msgr. Van Noort: “The Church’s rulers are infallible not in any and
every exercise of their teaching power; but only when, using all the fullness
of their authority, they clearly intend to bind everyone to absolute assent or,
as common parlance puts it, when they ‘define’ something in matters pertaining
to the Christian religion. That is why all theologians distinguish in the
dogmatic decrees of the councils or of the popes between those things set forth
therein by way of definition and those used simply by way of illustration or
argumentation. For the intention of binding all affects only the definition…And
if in some particular instances the intention of giving a definitive decision
were not made sufficiently clear, then no one would be held by virtue of such
definitions, to give the assent of faith: a doubtful law is no law at all.”49
Notice that even within dogmatic decrees issued by a Pope or council, only the
definitions contained within them are protected by infallibility (e.g.,
dogmatic canons with their accompanying anathemas). Furthermore, it is
necessary that the Pope’s intention of giving a definitive doctrinal definition
be made sufficiently clear for infallibility to be engaged. If the Church is
left guessing, questioning, and endlessly debating whether the Pope (or
council) intended to bind the universal Church to a particular teaching, it is
a very good indicator that the definitive character is lacking for an
infallible proposition. And our tradition has well established ways by which
this definitive intent is made clear, for example, the use of the “anathema
sit” formula, stating that one must believe this under pain of excommunication,
or under pain of losing the faith, or similar such statements.
The Case of
Pope John XXII One example of a Pope publicly teaching error (which would later
be condemned as a heresy), but without invoking his binding authority, is John
XXII (1322-1334). The Pope taught publicly that the souls of the faithful
departed would only possess the Beatific Vision after the Last Judgment. In a
sermon delivered to a distinguished audience consisting of Cardinals, prelates,
and theologians, the Pope taught: “The souls of the faithful departed do not
enjoy that perfect or face to face vision of God, in which, according to St.
Augustine (in Psalm XC, Sermon, No. 13), consists their full reward of justice;
nor will they have that happiness until after the general judgment. When, and
only when, the soul will be re-united to the body, will this perfect bliss come
to man - coming to the whole man composed of body and soul, and perfecting his
entire being.”50 Pope John XXII taught that after being purified in Purgatory,
the souls would be placed “under the altar” (Apoc. 6:9) while awaiting the General
Resurrection of the Body. He claimed that during this time, the souls would be
consoled and protected by the humanity of Christ, but would not possess the
Beatific Vision.51 Pope John XXII taught this error in a tract published prior
to his election (while still Cardinal di Osa), and also taught it publicly in a
series of sermons he gave in Avignon, France during his reign as Pope. As Pope,
he even tried to force it on the Faculty of Theology in Paris, before
eventually retracting the error on his deathbed. The following account is taken
from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: “In the last years of John’s pontificate
there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on
by himself…Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this
question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see
God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same
teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, [with] many theologians,
who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before
the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view
heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the
General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s
view (…) In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on
the question, decided in favor of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed
departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification;
at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this
question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to
confirm their decision. (…) Before his death he [John XXII] withdrew his former
opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed
in heaven the Beatific Vision.”52 After the death of John XXII, his successor,
Pope Benedict XII, infallibly defined that the souls of the faithful departed,
after being purified in Purgatory if necessary, do indeed possess the Beatific
Vision prior to the Last Judgment.53 After noting the formal condemnation of
the error following the death of John XXII, the Catholic historian Roberto de
Mattei said: “Following these doctrinal decisions, the thesis sustained by John
XXII must be considered formally heretical, even if at that time the Pope
sustained that it was still not defined as a dogma of faith. St. Robert
Bellarmine who dealt amply with this issue in De Romano Pontifice54 writes that
John XXII supported a heretical thesis, with the intention of imposing it as
the truth on the faithful, but died before he could have defined the dogma,
without therefore, undermining the principle of pontifical infallibility by his
behavior. The heterodox teaching of John XXII was certainly an act of ordinary
magisterium regarding the faith of the Church, but not infallible, as it was
devoid of a defining nature.”55 The case of Pope John XXII proves that a Pope
can teach public errors against the Faith – even errors contrary to material
dogmas,56 which, therefore, could later be declared heretical. While the
infallible definition (that the departed souls of the just enjoy the Beatific
Vision) was not issued until after the death of John XXII, this truth is part
of the Deposit of Faith, which explains why the Pope’s teaching was immediately
and vigorously opposed by theologians (even as heretical) well beyond the
confines of Avignon. As we saw, Pope Adrian VI called John XXII a “heretic”
and, as de Mattei correctly notes, Pope Benedict XII’s definition officially
renders John XXII’s teaching “formally heretical.” At the end of his recorded
CD talk “Counterfeit Catholicism vs. Consistent Catholicism,” the Sedevacantist
preacher Gerry Matatics fields a question from an attendee who asks why Pope
John XXII didn’t lose his office for teaching heresy. After Matatics properly
explains the three conditions for papal infallibility defined in Pastor
Aeternus, he says that John XXII did not violate infallibility because he did
not “impose” his error upon the universal Church (even though St. Bellarmine
said John XXII did intend to impose it upon the Church). Of course, if the
failure to “impose” (using Matatics’ own words) erroneous doctrines upon the
Church saves John XXII from falling from office, then the same would also apply
to the post-conciliar Popes, since none of them definitively “imposed” their
errors upon the Church either (and the failure to meet this one condition alone
means they have not violated infallibility, even if their errors qualified as
material heresies). While the conciliar Popes may have urged the faithful to
join them in the ecumenical venture of Vatican II, Catholics have no obligation
to do so, and remain Catholics in good standing, even if they refuse those
novel doctrines and practices that are not in conformity to Tradition. Mr.
Matatics’ admission is fatal to his own thesis. What applies to John XXII
applies to John XXIII and the other post-Vatican II Popes as well. The case of
John XXII also shows us that there will always be “papaloters” who follow the
Pope into any novelty or heresy whatsoever. For example, even though there was
strong opposition to John XXII’s teaching by the “traditionalist” Catholics (the
“Recognize and Resist” camp of the day), the head of the Franciscans, Gerard
Ordon, eagerly supported the Pope’s novel teaching. Ordon and others (including
a Dominican preacher in Paris) promoted the Pope’s errors, which caused an
uproar at the University of Paris. This resulted in its theologians publicly
opposing the Pope (not just those who agreed with him, as we see by some
“conservatives” in our day) and asking that he (the Pope) correct his error.
The case of John XXII further demonstrates that a Pope who teaches error
publicly - even an error contrary to a material dogma - does not automatically
lose his office for doing so, even though, no doubt, if faced with such a
situation, some would overreact by declaring him to be a “false Pope.” Such accusations
were, in fact, levied against John XXII. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on
John XXII, which was cited above, spoke of the “great commotion” that ensued
when certain individuals began to disseminate the Pope’s error. As one would
expect, at the time there were some unstable souls who went too far in their
reaction to the papal crisis. One of these individuals was the rebellious
William of Ockham, who has been called “the first Protestant.”57 William of
Ockham is commonly held to be a prime mover in the error of Nominalism, and
advocated a “secular absolutism,” that denied the right of the Popes to
exercise temporal power, or to interfere in any way in the affairs of the
Empire.58 Although he was never formally condemned as a heretic, a commission of
six theologians appointed by the Pope drew up two lists of his doctrines which
more or less approached heresy. During the doctrinal crisis caused by Pope John
XXII, the unruly William of Ockham went too far by declaring the Pope to be a
“false Pope” who lost his office due to heresy. He wrote: “Because of the
errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turn away from
the obedience of the false Pope…because of his errors and heresies the same
pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy, and excommunicated by Canon
Law itself, without need of further sentence… If anyone should like to recall
me [to his obedience] … let him try to defend his constitutions and sermons,
and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into
the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest
reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to
obey him” (Tractatus de Successivis).”59 Needless to say, the Church never
agreed with the claim of “the first Protestant,” who held that John XXII was a
false Pope who lost his office for teaching heresy. But what the historical
example of John XXII and William of Ockham shows us is that if faced with the
crisis of a Pope teaching errors publicly, we should not be surprised to find
an overreaction by unbalanced souls who rashly declare the Pope to have lost
his office. Such an overreaction is precisely what we see with today’s
Sedevacantists, whose lack of stability and general spiritual disorder are no
secret60 (not to mention a lack of integrity, as we have unfortunately seen,
for example, with Fr. Cekada and John Lane). In fact, one former Sedevacantist
said that when he was entangled in the movement, he found nothing but spiritual
disorder in all the Sedevacantists he ever met – himself included. He wrote: “I
myself had once been a Sedevacantist. Only in retrospect can I honestly see the
great bitterness and lack of charity that this led to on my part. I have found
nothing but spiritual disorder – to one extent or another – in all the
Sedevacantists I have ever met (myself included and foremost among them). It
would be best to leave out the numerous downfalls - in scandalous fashion - of
bitter Sedevacantists.”61 We will deal with the bad fruits of Sedevacantism in
Chapter 21. For now, suffice it to say that every papal crisis has had those
who overreact in one direction or the other, whether it be the William of
Ockhams of the fourteenth century who separated themselves from John XXII, or
the John Lanes of our day who have declared all the Popes for the past 50-plus
years to be “antipopes.” But to William of Ockham’s credit, he did not go
nearly as far as John Lane and his many Sedevacantist colleagues, who now claim
that all the other Bishops of the world – or at least all who are in charge of
the dioceses – have also publicly defected from the faith and lost their
office.
An
Ecumenical Council Condemns Sedevacantism To curb such overreactions from
unstable individuals, the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) condemned
anyone who separated himself from his Patriarch by private judgment (i.e.,
Sedevacantism) before the matter had been settled by a synod, attaching the
grave penalty of excommunication to any monk or layman who did otherwise: “As
divine scripture clearly proclaims, ‘Do not find fault before you investigate,
and understand first and then find fault.’ And does our law judge a person
without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this
holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no
lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his
own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod. (…) If anyone
shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly
functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he
must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church [i.e.
excommunicated] until he is converted by repentance and reconciled” (Canon
10).62 As we can see, an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church has flatly
condemned the Sedevacantist thesis. It has done so by condemning the error by
which one, in an act of private judgment, separates himself from communion with
his Patriarch or Bishop (the Pope is the Bishop of Rome). Clearly the John
Lanes, the Gerry Matatics, and Fr. Cekadas of today think they know better than
the Council Fathers of Constantinople and Pope Adrian, who ratified its
decrees, since they themselves have done, and seek to persuade others to do,
precisely what the Council expressly forbade, and to which it attached the
grave penalty of excommunication.63 This condemnation of deposing lawful
religious authority by private judgment is rooted in the divinely revealed words
of Our Lord Himself, Who taught His disciples not to usurp such authority, even
including the very high priest (Caiaphas) who put Him to death: “Then Jesus
spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the
Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever
they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not;
for they say, and do not” (Mt. 23:1-3).64 If Our Lord Himself acknowledged the
legitimacy of the officeholders of the Old Covenant “church” (the successors to
Moses), how much more does He will us to do the same for the office-holders of
the New Covenant Church, and most notably the successors to St. Peter?
Especially when Christ tells us to “hear the church” (Mt. 18:17) in the same
Gospel?65 Indeed, just as Christ instructed His disciples to recognize those
who have “sitten on the chair of Moses,” He requires the same from us for those
who sit on the Chair of St. Peter
The Case of
Pope Honorius The case of Pope Honorius (625-638) is another historical example
of a Pope who not only fell into heresy, but was officially condemned by the
Church as a heretic.66 Pope Honorius promoted the heresy of the Monothelites
who held that Christ had only one will.67 The Pope did this in official letters
to Sergius I, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The letters were sent at the
time when St. Sophronius was defending the Faith by publicly opposing the
Monothelite heresy (and for which Honorius actually rebuked St. Sophronius).
This was also after Pope St. Leo the Great had defined the union of the two
natures of Christ in A.D. 449 (which can be said to affirm the two wills, which
the Monothelites denied),68 and which was reiterated by the Council of
Chalcedon in 451.69 In one of his letters to Sergius, Pope Honorius said: “As
regards defining a dogma of the Church, while confessing there are two natures
united in Christ, we should not definitively state whether there are one or two
operations in the Mediator between God and men.”70 Pope Honorius refused to
“confirm the brethren” by defending the Faith in the face of the Monothelite
heresy, and consequently placed truth and error on the same level.71 While some
have argued that Honorius did not personally embrace the Monothelite heresy,
his letter to Sergius suggests otherwise (as the Council of Constantinople
itself remarked); and he certainly failed in his duty to condemn the errors, which
of itself amounts to an approval of them, according to the wellknown statement
of Pope St. Felix (483-492): “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to
defend truth is to suppress it.” For his actions (and lack thereof), in the
face of the Monothelite heresy, Pope Honorius was formally condemned as a
heretic by three ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church (Constantinople III
in 680- 681, Nicea II in 787, and Constantinople IV in 869-870), as well as a
local Church council (Trullo in 692). In the Third Council of Constantinople,
Session XIII (March 28, 681), we read: “After we had read the doctrinal letters
of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus or Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well
as the letter of the latter to Sergius, we find that these documents [including
the letter from Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to
the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers of
repute, and [that they] follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore
we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the
names of these men must also be expelled from the holy Church, namely, that of
Sergius (…) We anathematized them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous
decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised,
Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found in his letter to
Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious
doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”72 In Session XVI (August 9,
681), the council also declared: “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the
heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus.” In Session
XVIII (September 16, 681), we further read: “The creeds (of the earlier
Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the
orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds
a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit
tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius… also Honorius, Pope of
Old Rome… so he [that is, the devil] failed not, by them, to cause trouble in
the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one
energy of the two natures of the one Christ.”73 Pope St. Agatho died before the
conclusion of the Council, which was ratified by his successor, Pope St. Leo
II, who reigned from 681 to 683. In his letter formally confirming the decrees
of the Council, Pope Leo said: “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.”74 Note further that
from the eighth to the eleventh century, all newly elected Popes had to swear
in the Papal Oath before assuming office that they acknowledged Constantinople
III had anathematized Pope Honorius (as seen in the Liber Pontificalis and
Liber Diurnus). Also, the lessons in the Roman Breviary (for the office of St.
Leo II), up to the sixteenth century, listed Honorius as among those
anathematized and excommunicated by the same council. Notwithstanding the
foregoing historical facts affirming the Church’s repeated condemnations of
Pope Honorius as a heretic for following “the false teachings of the heretics”
and its order for Honorius’ letters to be burned,75 the Sedevacantist author,
John Lane, had the audacity to claim that “it is commonly admitted” that
Honorius’ letter to Sergius was “completely orthodox.”76 Commonly admitted by
whom? Lane doesn’t say, nor does he provide even a single citation to justify
his gratuitous assertion. But whoever Lane is referring to, it obviously
doesn’t include the Popes and bishops gathered in the Councils who issued these
condemnations, and those who, by a “unanimous decree,” anathematized Honorius
and expelled him from the Church. Lane’s assertion that Honorius’ “letter” was
“completely orthodox” also does violence to the wording of the condemnation
itself, which explicitly states that Honorius was anathematized “because of
what we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his
view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” How does Lane defend his position in
light of the explicit wording of the Council texts? He does so by resorting to
his old tactic of casting doubt upon its authenticity – just like he did with
the earlier quotation from Pope Adrian. When faced with the clear and
undeniable teaching of the Third Council of Constantinople, Lane had the hubris
to claim that “the acts of the Council are of doubtful authenticity,”77 even
though they were ratified in their totality by Pope St. Leo II and have been
universally accepted by the Church ever since! Once again, Lane doesn’t provide
a single quotation from any authority to justify his assertions.78 Of course,
as a Sedevacantist, Lane must argue that Honorius wasn’t really a heretic
because he knows the Church, after anathematizing Honorius for heresy, did not
nullify his papal acts, nor did the Church declare him an “antipope” who lost
his office for heresy (a fact which by itself negates the Sedevacantist
thesis). Thus, Lane and his Sedevacantist colleagues are forced to defend their
position with allegations of inauthenticity (which, in this case, would have to
include the condemnations found in three ecumenical councils!), as well as publicly
impugning the good names of those who disagree with them, as if such smear
tactics will intimidate others from challenging their assertions. For example,
reverting back to his old bag of tricks, Lane accuses Fr. Boulet - the same
priest whom he falsely accused of being “deceived” and “careless” for citing
what he claimed was an “invented” quotation from Pope Adrian - of being “rash
and unnecessarily injurious to the reputation of a sovereign pontiff.”79 What
was Fr. Boulet’s crime? He dared to quote directly from the Third Council of
Constantinople in his article against Sedevacantism. That’s the offense for
which Lane sought to discredit him. For Lane to refer to Boulet’s scholarship
as “rash” and “injurious to the reputation” of a Pope for simply quoting an
ecumenical council, when he himself has publicly declared the last six Popes to
be “antipopes,” is an example of stupefying hypocrisy. As a backstop argument,
Lane actually claims that if the decrees of the Council are authentic, Pope St.
Leo II was at odds with the reasoning of the Council which he himself ratified,
by claiming that Pope Leo did not condemn Honorius for teaching heresy or for
believing it, but only because he “fostered it by his negligence.”80 In other
words, even though Pope Leo approved the Council’s condemnation of Honorius for
positively “scattering” the “heretical doctrine” by his “letter,” Lane wants us
to believe that Leo disagreed with the Council’s rationale, believing instead
that this was a case of mere passive negligence on the part of the Honorius.81
So, for John Lane, either the condemnations of Honorius by Constantinople III
are inauthentic, or they are authentic, but not actually believed by the Pope
who approved them. For Sedevacantists, the more problematic the historical
facts are, the more desperate and indeed ridiculous their arguments to refute
them become. Also note that in the very article in which John Lane impugned the
good name of Fr. Boulet for quoting the Council of Constantinople, Lane himself
quotes from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope Honorius. The reason
this is significant is that the article itself directly refutes Lane’s
assertion that Pope Leo only condemned Honorius for negligence. It also
directly contradicts Lane’s claim that the view of Pope Leo differed from that
of the council which he himself affirmed. For example, after citing an excerpt
from Pope Leo’s letter, in which the Pope formally confirmed the decrees of the
council and explicitly referred to the “profane treachery” of Honorius, the
Catholic Encyclopedia adds: “The last words of the quotation are given above as
in the Greek of the letter, because … [some have] taught that by these words
Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and
substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing, however, could be less
explicit. (…) Such a distinction between the pope’s view and the council’s view
is not justified by close examination of the facts.”82 The very article Lane
himself cited directly contradicts his own assertion – and it does so in
multiple places. It is also interesting to note that Lane failed to provide his
readers with a proper reference for the aforementioned Catholic Encyclopedia
article he cited. Why would he fail to provide a proper reference? Could it be
because he did not want his readers to look up the article for themselves and
discover that his own position is refuted by the very source he himself cites
as an authority for it? Like other Sedevacantists (recall Fr. Cekada’s half sentence
hatchet job on the quote from Cardinal Billot), Lane provides his readers with
a snippet here and a sentence fragment there – just enough to “prove” his point
- even though the very document he cites explicitly contradicts his position.
Unfortunately, these are typical tactics one finds by a close examination of
the writings of Sedevacantist apologists, such as Fr. Cekada and John Lane. To
further demonstrate the complete baselessness of Lane’s claim that the view of
Pope Leo differed from that of the council that he himself ratified, we can
cite the letter of Pope Leo himself to the Emperor of Constantinople. In the
letter, the Pope explicitly states that he anathematized Honorius because he
“endeavoured by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman
Church,”83 and not for mere negligence alone, as Lane claims. And, as we have
already noted, Pope Honorius was included in the lists of heretics
anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical
councils. Moreover, in the oath taken by every Pope from the eighth to the
eleventh century, we find a phrase condemning “Honorius, who added fuel to
their wicked assertions" (Liber Diurnus, ii, 9). Lane’s contention is also
refuted by the many Catholic historians who have unequivocally proclaimed that
Honorius’ condemnation was for heretical “doctrine,” not mere “negligence”
(e.g., historian and bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele (1809-1893);
Henry R. Percival (1854-1903), author of The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the
Undivided Church). Commenting on this point in his 1907 article, The Condemnation
of Pope Honorius, Dom John Chapman, O.S.B. (the same author who penned the
Catholic Encyclopedia article cited by Mr. Lane), wrote: “It has been sometimes
said that St. Leo in these words interprets the decision of the Council about
Honorius in a mild sense, or that he modifies it. It is supposed that by
‘permitted to be polluted’ Leo II means no positive action, but a mere neglect
of duty, grave enough in a Pope, but not amounting to the actual teaching of
heresy. If Leo II had meant this, he would have been mistaken. Honorius did
positively approve the letter of Sergius, as the Council pointed out. Further,
the merely negative ruling of the typus had been condemned as heresy by the
Lateran Council. As a fact the words of Leo II are harsher than those of the
Council. He declares that Honorius did not publish the apostolic doctrine of
his See, and he represents this as a disgrace to the Church of Rome itself, as
a pollution of the unspotted. This no Eastern Bishop had ventured to say. The
anathemas on Pope Honorius have been again and again continued. A few years
later he is included in the list of heretics by the Trullan Synod …the seventh
and eighth oecumenical Councils did the same.”84 So much for Lane’s attempt to
impugn the good name of Fr. Boulet by claiming it is “rash and unnecessarily
injurious to the reputation of a sovereign pontiff” and “incompatible with the
words of Pope Leo II” to cite the Council of Constantinople in support of the
mere “possibility”85 of a Pope falling into heresy. Quite the contrary, it is
John Lane who has injured the reputation of the Sovereign Pontiff (St. Leo II),
by actually alleging that the sainted Pope disagreed with the very council he
approved, that is, assuming Lane will finally concede the council’s decrees are
authentic. Pope Honorius was anathematized by the Church and condemned by three
ecumenical councils for heresy, and for centuries he was listed among other
heretics in the Roman Breviary and in the Papal Oath. As Fr. Chapman went on to
say in the above article from the Catholic Truth Society: “Unquestionably no
Catholic has the right to deny that Honorius was a heretic (though in the sense
that Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia were heretics), a heretic in words if
not in intention.”86 In fact, Fr. Chapman wrote the same in the Catholic
Encyclopedia article that John Lane cited in his defense of Honorious (without
providing a proper reference): “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to
defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.”87 What
John Lane has demonstrated is not only apparent dishonesty, but the blatant
inconsistency between the Sedevacantists’ private judgment of the post-Vatican
II Popes, who have not been declared heretics by the Church, and their defense
of Pope Honorius, who has been declared a heretic by the Church (albeit after
his death)! The case of “Honorius the heretic,” however, does not in any way
contradict the dogma of papal infallibility, but rather highlights the narrow
scope of the charism. Even though his letter to Sergius was not a private
letter, but rather an official papal communication, Pope Honorius did not
intend to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church88 which, as we
saw, is one of the conditions for papal infallibility. Since this condition was
lacking, infallibility was not engaged. Commenting on Pope Honorius in light of
Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility, Fr. Chapman wrote: “We judge the
letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition, and deny them to be
ex-cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the
whole Church… the Pope was not defining with authority and binding the
Church.”89 Fr. Chapman also explained why the letters of Pope Honorius did not
imply that the Church of Rome erred in the faith: “Rome has an indefectible
faith, which is authoritatively promulgated to the whole Church by the Bishops
of the Apostolic See, the successors of Peter and the heirs at once of his
faith and of his authority. How was it possible to assert this, and yet in the
same breath to condemn Pope Honorius as a heretic? The answer is surely plain
enough. Honorius was fallible, was wrong, was a heretic, precisely because he
did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition
of the Roman Church. … Neither the Pope nor the Council consider that Honorius
had compromised the purity of Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to
represent it.”90 What the case of Pope Honorius shows is that it is possible
for a Pope “by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate faith of the Roman
Church” and yet still retain his office. What applies to Honorius, of course,
applies to the conciliar Popes. Because they have not been declared heretics by
the Church, they must be accepted as true Popes, even though many would argue
that, like Honorius, they too have compromised “the immaculate faith of the
Roman Church.”
Pope Stephen and The Cadaver Synod In the latter
part of the ninth century and into the tenth century, there were rival camps
battling to gain control of the papacy. During this period, the papacy fell
into the hands of one or another from each of these rival groups. In January of
the year 897, Pope Stephen VI had decided to put his predecessor from the rival
camp, Pope Formosus (891-896), on a mock trial for alleged violations of Church
law. To that end, Pope Stephen had the body of Pope Formosus exhumed, clothed
in his papal vestments, propped up on a throne, and placed on trial. A deacon
was appointed to answer the charges on behalf of the corpse. During this synod,
which came to be known as “The Cadaver Synod,” Pope Formosus was found “guilty”
of perjury, of having coveted the papal office, and of violating the canons of
the Church. Pope Stephen ordered that three fingers on Formosus’ right hand
(those used to give the papal blessing) be cut off and his body thrown into the
Tiber river. The election of Pope Formosus and all the official acts of his pontificate
were rendered null and void, and his ordinations were declared invalid. Pope
Stephen declared the ordinations of Pope Formosus invalid because Stephen held
the erroneous belief (common during the day) that in order for an ordination to
be sacramentally valid, it also had to be canonically licit. Today, there is no
question that this position was entirely erroneous. Pope Stephen VI was
succeeded by Pope Romanus, who agreed with the decision of Pope Stephen and the
Cadaver Synod. Pope Romanus was then succeeded by Pope Theodore II, who was a
member of the Formosus camp. Immediately after being elected to the papacy,
Pope Theodore convened a synod of his own and overturned the decision of Pope
Romanus, Pope Stephen, and the Cadaver Synod. He declared the election and
ordinations performed by Formosus to have been valid and restored the clergy to
their office. Pope Theodore II’s immediate successor, Pope John IX, held two
synods, one at Rome and another at Ravena, both of which confirmed that the
election and ordinations of Formosus had indeed been valid.91 Then came Pope
Sergius III (from the opposing camp), who held another synod that overturned
the ruling of Popes Theodore II and John IX, and once again declared null the
election and ordinations performed by Pope Formosus.92 During this tumultuous
time for the Church and the papacy, there were at least five synods, all
convened and overseen by the reigning Pope, which issued contradictory
declarations. Moreover, three of these synods issued an erroneous decision that
was rooted in a doctrinal error.93 During these events, which were well known
to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, there was no violation of papal
infallibility, since the erroneous judgments rendered by the Popes were not
intended to be a doctrinal definition (even though these Popes willed their
decisions to be held by the universal Church). This historical example
underscores in a most striking way that it is only when a Pope is defining a
doctrine (a divinely revealed truth in Scripture or Tradition) that he is
preserved from all error, according to the definition of Vatican I. A violation
of infallibility would have occurred in these cases only if the Pope had
defined that ordinations are sacramentally valid only when they are canonically
licit, and not by simply acting on the erroneous belief. These extraordinary
events show us that a Pope can not only embrace an error, but also act upon
that error and thereby cause untold confusion and harm to the Church (here,
spreading universal doubt in the Church about the validity of the sacraments
due to defective ordinations). One can only imagine the turmoil that the
faithful experienced when a Pope declared that their clergy had not been
validly ordained, which meant, of course, that the Masses they celebrated, the
Confirmations they administered, and the absolutions they gave, were all
invalid. These contradictory declarations from Popes and synods were followed
by additional papal scandals, one after another, that lasted for over a century.
Commenting on this difficult time in Church history, the Catholic magazine, The
Month wrote: “The period of history to which these extraordinary proceedings
belonged was the end of the ninth century, and the beginning of that century
and a half during which the Holy See, under the disturbing iinfluence of the feudal princes of the neighbourhood, was dragged through the mire of innumerable scandals.”94 This chaotic time shows us what God can and does permit His Church to suffer. It shows us that He can allow incredible damage to be inflicted upon the Church by its human element (including bad Popes) without the gates of hell prevailing, that is, without infallibility being violated. These events also show just how gravely mistaken are those who extend papal infallibility beyond the strict limits established by the Church, which is precisely what the Sedevacantists of our day have done. In attempting to explain how this “impossible” event occurred, the Sedevacantist writer, Steve Speray, was forced to deny that Pope Stephen was a true Pope. He wrote: “There is no question that Stephen’s mental capacity was unstable. Because of his insanity, Stephen should be considered an antipope. One theologian says this isn’t a novel understanding among canonists: ‘Not few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity… (Introductio in Codicem, 1946 .D. Udalricus Beste).’ Who would not think Stephen was mad after the cadaver synod? … Stephen VI’s case shows that either the Church has failed to view him as insane, or that She recognized an insane pope given that he is viewed as a true pope by his successors and placed on the official papal list.”95 Notice that Mr. Speray reveals his loss of faith in the Church. He says that “the Church has failed” to recognize Pope Stephen as “insane,” who, in Speray’s opinion, was actually an insane antipope (note that Speray has no credentials in either theology or psychology). Thus, Speray effectively accuses the Catholic Church of defecting, since the more than 150 Popes who have succeeded Stephen VI have recognized him as a valid Pope. Yet, Steve Speray believes that the Church has been in error about this matter, and for over a millennium. This, of course, means that the Church defected over a thousand years ago, since it has recognized Stephen VI as a true Pope. Mr. Speray’s error is easily identified by seeing that he has extended infallibility beyond the limits established by the Church. Since a small error in the beginning is a big error in the end, the only way he can reconcile his personal belief with this historical event, is to claim that Pope Stephen secretly lost his office – even though no historian or theologian has ever suggested such a thing. Although Mr. Speray concedes that the Catholic Church recognizes Pope Stephen as a valid Pope, he is nevertheless forced, by his errors regarding papal infallibility, to declare him an antipope. The solution for Mr. Speray’s difficulty is not to declare Pope Stephen an antipope, but to realize that he and his Sedevacantist colleagues have an entirely erroneous and unCatholic idea of papal infallibility. This historical event shows us why the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, defined papal infallibility by the strict parameters that it did.
3. Exercise of Supreme Apostolic Authority The third and final condition necessary for papal infallibility is that the Pope teaches using his supreme apostolic authority. Two things are to be considered regarding this condition: (a) The Pope must be acting in his official capacity as Pope; and, (b) he must be using his supreme authority at its maximum power. Regarding the first point, Msgr. Van Noort explains:
“A man holding office does not always act in his official capacity. Again, if the same person holds several offices simultaneously, he does not have to be constantly exercising the highest function. We must keep these points in mind when discussing the pope’s infallibility. He is not only the pope of the whole Church, he is also the local bishop of the diocese of Rome, metropolitan of its surrounding sees, and temporal sovereign of the Vatican state. Consequently, if the pope speaks merely as a private individual, or as a private theologian, or as a temporal sovereign, or precisely as ordinary of the diocese of Rome, or precisely as metropolitan of the province of Rome, he should not be looked on as acting infallibly. (…) As private theologian he might write a book on some aspects of the spiritual life. As a temporal sovereign of the Vatican state, he might issue decrees of taxes, or economic reform (…) Speaking precisely as ordinary of the diocese of Rome he might give a series of instructions or a retreat to the people of some definite parish in the city. What is required for an infallible declaration, therefore, is that the pope be acting precisely as pope; that is, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians so that his decision looks to the universal Church and is given for the sake of the universal Church.”96 With respect to the second point, namely, using his authority to its maximum power, the same pre-Vatican II dogmatic manual teaches the following: “A man who acts in an official capacity does not always make use of his full power, of the whole weight of the authority which he possesses by his very position. … Thus the pope, even acting as pope, can teach the universal Church without making use of his supreme authority at its maximum power. Now the Vatican Council defined merely this point: the pope is infallible if he uses his doctrinal authority at its maximum power, by handing down a binding and definitive decision: such a decision, for example, by which he quite clearly intends to bind all Catholics to an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent. Consequently, even if the pope, and acting as pope, praises some doctrine, or recommends it to Christians, or even orders that it alone should be taught in theological schools, this act should not necessarily be considered an infallible decree since he may not intend to hand down a definitive decision. (…) For the same reason, namely a lack of intention to hand down a final decision, not all doctrinal decisions which the pope proposes in encyclical letters should be considered definitions. In a word, there must always be present and clearly presented the intention of the pope to hand down a decision which is final and definitive.”97 Clearly, infallibility does not cover all the teachings of a Pope on matters of faith or morals, but only those teachings which he intends to be definitive and binding upon the universal Church. Sometimes a Pope may explicitly decline to engage his charism of infallibility, even when he is teaching the entire Church on matters of faith or morals. For example, Pope Benedict XIV’s De canonisatione sanctorum (July 20, 1753) expressly affirms that this document has no other authority than that of a private author.98 Pope Paul VI, who ratified the documents of the Second Vatican Council, also stated: “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”99 In such cases, infallibility is not engaged, since the charism is only engaged when the Pope intends to engage it by using the full force of his pontifical authority. To conclude this section, infallibility is a negative charism that prevents the possibility of error, but is only active when the conditions set down by the First Vatican Council are met. If any single one of these conditions is lacking, infallibility is not engaged and error is possible.100 Therefore, when considering whether a Pope can teach errors to the Church regarding faith and morals, we must make three distinctions: 1) A Pope teaching as a private person. 2) A Pope teaching as Pope on matters of faith or morals, but not intending to define a doctrine. 3) A Pope teaching as Pope, defining a doctrine on faith or morals, to be held by the universal Church.
It is only in the last instance that the charism of infallibility will prevent the Pope from erring. From this fact, it is evident that a Pope can err when teaching as a private theologian, and also when acting in his official capacity as Pope (as we saw in the cases of John XXII and Honorius), as long as he does not intend to define a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.101 The reason this is important is because some Sedevacantists erroneously believe that it is “impossible” for a Pope to make a heretical statement (i.e., contradicting a defined doctrine), believing that the charism of infallibility would prevent him from doing so. Based upon this first error, they arrive at the second, namely, that if a Pope says something that they believe to be heretical, it “proves” that he must have already lost his office (since, they believe, a true Pope cannot make a heretical statement). This is an entirely erroneous notion of papal infallibility. As we have seen, the charism of infallibility only prevents a Pope from erring when he is defining a doctrine for the universal Church (binding the universal Church). It does not prevent a Pope from erring (or making a heretical statement) when he is not intending to define, even if acting in his official capacity as Pope. In light of the foregoing, we conclude this chapter by noting that it is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Pope to lose the faith internally, and he can without a doubt profess error externally, provided he does not meet the conditions set down by Vatican I for infallibility. To insist on the contrary, as do Sedevacantists, is to extend infallibility beyond its narrowly defined limits and commit the error of excess. It is to reject the teaching of Popes Innocent III and Adrian VI as well as the “common opinion” of the Church’s theologians.102 It is to deny the historical cases of Popes Honorius and John XXII. And, as we witnessed with the sad case of John Lane, it may even force one to cast doubt upon the authenticity of a general council that was ratified by a Pope, and which has been accepted by the universal Church for thirteen centuries. In the present ecclesiastical crisis, this error of excess (extending infallibility beyond the limits established by the Church) leads rapidly to one of the two opposite errors: Sedevacantism or “papolatry.”
