A pope cannot fall in heresy ?
First opinion : God will never allow the Pope to fall into heresy
Main source : «The New Mass of Paul VI : what to think of it ?»
by Prof. Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira
Table of contents
- Introduction
- Arguments of Cardinal Billot
- Nuances within this first opinion
- Arguments contrary to this first opinion
4.1. Holy Scripture
4.2. Tradition
4.2.a. Documents relating to Pope Honorius
4.2.b. During the pontificate of Pascal II (1099-1118)
4.2.c. From Gratian to our days
- Response of the defenders of this opinion
- A simply probable opinion
- Introduction :
We will adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmine on the subject of a heretical pope (« De Romano Pontifice »). Here is the first opinion.
The defenders of this first opinion estimate, on the basis of rational arguments as well as the Scriptures and Tradition, that Our Lord will never allow any successor of Saint Peter to come to lose the faith [1].
The first defender of this opinion seems to have been Albert Pighius, a Dutch theologian of the XVIth century, in his work Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae Assertio [2].
Since then, numerous authors have adopted the affirmation or simply the possibility of this position. The most significant among them, for the authority they enjoy and for the attention they devote to the question, are : Suarez [3], Saint Robert Bellarmine [4], Cardinal Billot [5] and the French canonist of the XIXth century, D. Bouix [6].
- Let us see how Cardinal Billot defends his position :
“Admitting the hypothesis that the Pope has become notoriously heretical, it must be conceded, without hesitation, that he would lose ipso facto the pontifical power, since he would have, of his own will, placed himself outside the body of the Church, by becoming unbelieving (…)
“I have said : « admitting the hypothesis ». But it seems far more probable that this hypothesis is a simple hypothesis, never reducible to the act, by virtue of what Saint Luke (22, 32) says :
« I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren ».
“That this must be understood of Saint Peter and all his successors, is what the voice of Tradition attests, and what we will demonstrate ex professo later, when treating of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. For the moment, we will consider this as absolutely certain [7].
“Now, although these words of the Gospel refer principally to the Pontiff as a public person who teaches ex cathedra, it must be affirmed that they extend, by a certain necessity, also to the private person of the Pontiff with regard to his preservation from heresy [8]. Indeed, to the Pontiff has been given the ordinary function of confirming others in the faith. For this reason, Christ – who, because of his dignity, is heard in all – asks for him the gift of an indefectible faith. But in favour of whom, I ask, is this prayer made? Of an abstract and metaphysical person, or rather of a real and living person, to whom it falls to confirm others? Or perhaps will one call indefectible in the faith he who cannot err in establishing what others must believe, but who personally can make shipwreck of the faith?
“And – observe – even if the Pontiff, falling into a notorious heresy, lost ipso facto the pontificate, he would however logically fall into heresy before losing his charge ; this being so, the defectibility in the faith would coexist with the duty of confirming his brethren, which the promise of Christ seems to exclude in an absolute manner.
“Moreover : if, considering the providence of God, it cannot happen that the Pontiff fall into an occult or merely internal heresy, for that would entail concomitant evils far worse. Now, the order established by God absolutely requires that, as a private person, the Sovereign Pontiff cannot be heretical, even in losing the faith in the internal forum only.
“For – writes Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Rom. Pont., lib. IV, c. 6) – the Pontiff not only must not and cannot preach heresy, but he must also always teach the truth, and doubtless he will do so, since Our Lord has commanded him to confirm his brethren. But how, I ask, will a heretical Pontiff confirm his brethren in the faith and always preach the true faith? God can, doubtless, wrest from a heretical heart a confession of the true faith, as he once made the ass of Balaam speak. But that would be rather violent and not at all conformable to the manner of acting of divine Providence, which disposes all things with gentleness [9].”
“Finally, if the hypothesis of a Pope become notoriously heretical were to become reality, the Church would be plunged into such and so numerous afflictions that one can already perceive a priori that God would never allow it [10].”
- Nuances within this first opinion
Among the positions adopted by the defenders of this first opinion, there exist certain nuances which it is fitting to highlight.
– There are those who think that this opinion constitutes a truth of faith. Such was, for example, the point of view of Matthaeucci, a Franciscan theologian deceased in 1722 [11].
– Other authors, among whom Cardinal Billot, whom we cite above, do not think that this opinion constitutes a truth of faith, but classify it as being far the most probable, diminishing the probability of the opposing opinions.
– Others, finally, defend this position in an even less rigid manner. This is the case of Suarez and Saint Robert Bellarmine. It does not seem to them that the passage of Saint Luke (22, 32) is decisive, while estimating that certain documents of the Tradition, which admit the hypothesis of a heretical Pope, have a value superior to that which they are attributed, for example, by Cardinal Billot.
We can see that even the tone of the argumentation of Suarez differs from that which we can note in the passage cited of Cardinal Billot :
“Although many [12] can support, with plausibility, that the Pope can fall into heresy, it seems to me however, in a few words, more pious and more probable to affirm that the Pope, as a private person, can err through ignorance but not in a contumacious manner. For, although God can prevent a heretical Pope from causing damage to the Church, the most gentle manner of acting of Providence would be that, having promised that the Pope would never err in defining, God, consequently, would provide that he never become heretical. Moreover, it must be considered that what until now has never happened in the Church, by the order and the providence of God, cannot happen” [13].
- Arguments contrary to this opinion
Against this first opinion, one can object, on the one hand, that the passage cited of Saint Luke (22, 32) is generally applied only to pontifical teachings involving infallibility ; and, on the other hand, that there exist numerous testimonies of the Tradition in favour of the possibility of a heresy in the person of the Pope.
4.1. Holy Scripture
As to the exact sense of the text of Saint Luke, numerous theologians support indeed that, for the accomplishment of the promise of Our Lord, it suffices that there be no errors in the infallible documents. Thus, they conclude that there is no sufficient reason to judge that « the confirmation of the brethren » postulates also the indefectibility of the faith of the Pope as a private person.
Note by the editorial staff : Our Lord Jesus-Christ has therefore prayed for that Saint Peter receive the charism of infallibility ex cathedra and of the universal ordinary magisterium, which are both conditional : subject to well-defined conditions by the First Vatican Council.
Let us see, for example, how Palmieri [14] exposes this argument :
“(…) it is not necessary that the indefectible faith be in reality distinct from the confirmation of the brethren, but it suffices that it be distinguished by reason. For if the authentic and solemn preaching of the faith is infallible, he can confirm the brethren ; for this reason, the infallible faith and that which confirms are one and unique ; being infallible, it enjoys also the power to confirm the brethren. The indefectibility of the Pontiff in the faith has been requested so that he might confirm his brethren ; consequently, from the words of Christ, one cannot infer as necessary that indefectibility which is indispensable and sufficient to attain this objective ; and such is the infallibility of the authentic preaching [15].”
4.2. Tradition
We indicate here some documents of the Tradition which admit the possibility that the Pope fall into heresy.
4.2.a. Documents relating to Pope Honorius
There exist no historical proofs which allow affirming that Pope Honorius I was heretical ; it is however certain that his letters to the Patriarch Sergius favoured the Monothelite heresy, according to which there is only one will (physical) in Our Lord Jesus-Christ: having no human will, Jesus would have no human soul, therefore would not be man. This is a variant of Arianism.
Since it is a question of the favouring of heresy by a Pope, and not of heresy as such, the case of Honorius does not relate directly to our subject. Indeed the pope Honorius in accepting the formula « there is only one will in Our Lord Jesus-Christ » wanted to say that He had only one moral will, his human will being always submitted and in unison with his divine. But this so important distinction was omitted in his vague formulation : « there is only one will in Our Lord » so as not to cause waves in hoping that the heresy would extinguish itself with time passing, fearing persecutions if there had been too much severity. But no, on the contrary the heretics took advantage of the occasion to spread their error in the empire by abusing the papal text which seemed to endorse their error. The pope had taken a bad decision and by the ambiguity of his formulation he had favoured heresy.
However, it is important for us to observe that this case, perhaps more than other analogous cases recorded by history, has provided an occasion to the Popes, to the Councils, to the Saints, to the bishops and to the theologians to manifest their conviction that the hypothesis of a heretical Pope was not theologically absurd, but they have well examined the formulation of the pope to verify his orthodoxy or eventual heresy.
Indeed, we present below documents which admit directly the possibility of a heretical Pontiff, as well as others which admit it only indirectly. In this second group are found, for example, the documents which show that the orthodoxy of the Pope has been positively suspected. As it is evident, such a suspicion would be vain and absurd for he who would believe impossible the defection of the Roman Pontiff in the faith. The accusations of favouring of heresy are also included in this second group, when, by the terms in which they are formulated or by other circumstances, it becomes probable that in reality there was at least a positive suspicion that the Pope was heretical.
The Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth ecumenical, declares that it has analysed the dogmatic epistles of the Patriarch Sergius, as well as a letter written by Honorius I to the same patriarch. And it continues : « having verified that they are in total contradiction with the apostolic dogmas and the definitions of the holy Councils, and of all the Fathers worthy of approval, and that on the contrary they follow the false doctrines of the heretics, we reject them absolutely and execrate them as harmful to souls » [16].
After having anathematised the principal Monothelite heresiarchs [17], the Council condemns Honorius :
« We judge that, with them, Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, has been expelled from the Holy and Catholic Church of God and anathematised, for we have verified by his writing sent to Sergius that he has followed the thought of the latter in all and has confirmed his impious principles » [18].
In condemning Honorius as favouring heresy, Pope Saint Leo II (+683) has written :
« We anathematise also the inventors of the new error : Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus (…) and also Honorius, who has not enlightened this apostolic Church with the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but has permitted, by a sacrilegious betrayal, that the immaculate faith be sullied » [19].
In a letter to the bishops of Spain, the same Saint Leo II declares that Honorius has been condemned because « (…) he has not extinguished, as it befitted his apostolic authority, the nascent flame of heresy, but has fanned it by his negligence » [20].
And in a letter to Erwig, king of Spain, Saint Leo II repeats that, with the heresiarchs mentioned, has been condemned « (…) Honorius of Rome, who has consented that the immaculate faith of the apostolic tradition which he had received from his predecessors be sullied » [21].
Also with regard to the case of Pope Honorius, R. Baeumer writes :
« Subsequently, this condemnation (of Honorius, by the sixth ecumenical Council) has been renewed by the Synods « in Trullo » of 692 (Mansi, 11, 938), by the seventh general Council (Mansi, 13, 377) and by the eighth (Mansi, 16, 181). Leo II, who accepted the decision of the sixth general Council, has attenuated the fault of Honorius (…). The account of the condemnation of Honorius has even entered into the Liber Diurnus. Each newly elected Pope had to condemn the authors of the new heresy, « with Honorius, who has favoured their errors ». The Liber Pontificalis and the Roman Breviary mentioned the condemnation, in the second nocturn of the feast of Pope Saint Leo II (…) » [22].
Consequently, the affirmation of V. Mondello, according to which a tradition already solid in the VIIIth century said that « a heretical Pope can be judged by a Council » [23] had a complete historical basis.
Among the documents relating to the case of Pope Honorius, perhaps none has such importance for our theme as the passage cited below, extracted from a discourse of Pope Adrian II at the eighth ecumenical Council. As we will see, whatever the judgement passed on the case of Honorius I, we have here a pontifical declaration which admits the eventuality that a Pope fall into heresy [24]. Here are the words of Adrian II, pronounced in the second half of the IXth century, that is to say more than two centuries after the death of Honorius :
« We read that the Roman Pontiff has always judged the heads of all the churches (that is to say the patriarchs and the bishops) ; but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that after his death, Honorius has been anathematised by the Orientals ; but it must be remembered that he has been accused of heresy, the only crime which renders legitimate the resistance of inferiors to superiors, as well as the rejection of their pernicious doctrines » [25].
To be complete and just must one still remark that the Pope Honorius was accused of heresy only by a council (the Third of Constantinople) and only by its part (of the acts of the council) which has not been confirmed by a pope. Some popes on the contrary have accused the pope Honorius only of favouring heresy (of “semi-heresy”). We will see (in the chapter on the 5th opinion of St Bellarmin) that the papacy is lost only by a public heresy. This is why Honorius has never been considered to have lost his office of pope by heresy, although he is clearly condemned several times for favouritism of heresy (“semi-heresy”).
4.2.b. During the pontificate of Pascal II (1099-1118)
The question of investitures has again shaken Christendom. The emperor Henry V, holding the Pope prisoner, extorted from him concessions and promises irreconcilable with the Catholic doctrine. Having recovered his freedom, Pascal II has long hesitated to retract the acts which he had accomplished under constraint. Despite the repeated admonitions of the Saints, of the cardinals and of the bishops, his retraction and the hoped-for excommunication of the emperor were always postponed by him. Then began to rise in all the Church a murmur against the Pope, qualifying him as suspect of heresy and adjuring him to retract under penalty of losing the pontificate.
We cite here some facts and documents of the struggle that the Saints, the cardinals and the bishops have led against Pascal II. One will see thus that the theology of the epoch admitted the hypothesis of a heretical Pope and judged that, because of such a sin, he would lose the pontificate [26].
Saint Bruno, bishop of Segni and abbot of Monte Cassino, was at the head of the movement opposed to Pascal II in Italy. We possess no document in which he has declared in an indisputable manner that he judged the Pope suspect of heresy. Nevertheless, it is the accusation that his letters and his acts insinuated without equivocation.
To Pascal II, he wrote : « (…) I esteem you as my father and lord (…). I must love you ; nevertheless, I must love still more He who has created you and me. (…) I do not praise the pact (signed by the Pope), so horrible, so violent, concluded so treacherously and so contrary to all piety and religion. (…) We have the Canons ; we have the constitutions of the Fathers, since the epoch of the Apostles until you. (…) The Apostles have condemned and expelled from the communion of the faithful all those who obtained charges in the Church by secular power. (…) This determination of the Apostles (…) is holy, is Catholic, and whosoever would contradict it is not Catholic. For only are Catholics those who do not oppose the faith and the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and, on the contrary, they are heretics those who obstinately oppose the faith and the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (…) » [27].
In another letter, Saint Bruno underlines that he considered as heretics only those who deny the Catholic principles on the question of investitures, and not those who, in the concrete order, pressed by the circumstances, act in a manner not conformable to the true doctrine [28].
However, this reserve is not sufficient to exempt Pascal II from the suspicion of heresy, for he refused, even after the cessation of the constraint, to correct the evil done.
The Pope knew very well that Saint Bruno did not exclude the hypothesis of declaring him deposed, for he resolved to depose the saint from the influential charge of abbot of Monte Cassino on the basis of the following allegation :
« If I do not remove him from the government of the monastery, he will remove me, with his arguments, from the government of the Church » [29].
And when, finally, the Pope retracted, before the synod convened at Rome to examine the question, Saint Bruno of Segni exclaimed :
« May God be praised! For behold that the Pope himself has condemned this so-called privilege (of investiture by temporal power), which is heretical » [30].
With this phrase, Saint Bruno let it be understood publicly, for the first time, to what extent he suspected the orthodoxy of Pascal II. To this, his enemies protested energetically ; the most eminent among them was the abbot of Cluny, Jean of Gaète, « who – we read in Hefele-Leclercq – did not want to permit that the Pope be accused of heresy » [31].
Saint Bruno of Segni was not the only saint of the epoch who admitted the possibility of a heresy in Pascal II.
In 1112, the archbishop Guido of Vienne, future Pope Callixtus II, convened a provincial synod, to which participated, among other bishops, Saint Hugh of Grenoble and Saint Godfrey of Amiens. With the approval of these two saints, the synod revoked the decrees extorted by the emperor from the Pope and sent to the latter a letter in which we read :
« If, as we absolutely do not expect, you choose another way and refuse to confirm the decisions of our authority, may God help us, for thus you would separate us from obedience towards you » [32].
These words contain a threat of rupture with Pascal II, explicable only by the fact that in the spirit of the bishops reunited at Vienne, three notions were united :
firstly, they were convinced that it constituted a heresy to deny the doctrine of the Church on the investitures ;
secondly, they suspected that the Pope had embraced this heresy ;
and thirdly, they considered that a Pope, in the eventuality of being heretical, would lose his charge, and should therefore no longer be obeyed [33].
This interpretation is confirmed, in a manner to eliminate all doubt, by the letters written on this occasion by Saint Yves of Chartres, to which we make allusion hereafter.
After having related the events of the synod of Vienne, Hefele-Leclercq writes :
« The result was that, on 20 October of this same year, the Pope confirmed, in a brief letter and in vague terms, the decisions taken at Vienne, and praised the zeal of Guido. It is the fear of a schism which led the Pope to adopt this attitude » [34].
To discredit this provincial synod of Vienne, one could argue that another saint, the bishop Yves of Chartres, refused to participate in it, alleging that nobody could judge the Pope [35].
We do not have the intention here to study the history of the synod of Vienne. We cite it only to show that, at the epoch, two saints and a future Pope adopted an attitude towards Pascal II based on the principles that there could be a heretical Pope, and that in such a case, the Pontiff would lose his charge. Consequently, it is only under this angle that we will analyse the position of Saint Yves of Chartres.
He was also opposed to the concessions made by Pascal II to the emperor. He said that the Pope must be warned and exhorted by the bishops so that he repair the evil done. He was however in disagreement with the synod of Vienne, for he did not consider that the attitude of the Pope in the question of the investitures implied a heresy [36]. He affirmed, consequently, that Pascal II could not be submitted to the judgement of men, whatever the gravity of his weaknesses. Yet, Saint Yves recognised explicitly in his letter, which constitutes for us an important testimony on the possibility of the defection of the Pope in the faith, that the Pontiff, in the eventuality of being heretical, would lose his charge. Here are his words :
« (…) we do not want to deprive the principal keys of the Church (that is to say the Pope) of their power, whatever the person placed on the See of Peter, except if he departs manifestly from the evangelical truth » [37].
Consequently, the attitude adopted by Saint Yves of Chartres is not opposed, from the point of view which concerns us at this moment, to that of Saint Godfrey of Amiens and of Saint Hugh of Grenoble, but on the contrary, it corroborates it [38].
4.2.c. From Gratian to our days
In the Decretum of Gratian appears the following canon, attributed to Saint Boniface the martyr :
« That no mortal have the presumption to accuse the Pope of a fault, for, being charged to judge all, he must not be judged by anyone, except if he departs from the faith » [39].
In the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Dublanchy provides some expressive data on the influence of this canon in the fixation of the medieval thought with regard to the question of a heretical Pope :
« One finds in the Decretum of Gratian this affirmation attributed to Saint Boniface, archbishop of Mayence, and already cited as such by the cardinal Deusdedit (+1087) and by Saint Yves of Chartres, Decretum, V, 23 (…).
After Gratian, this same doctrine is found even among the most convinced partisans of the pontifical privileges. Innocent III refers to it in one of his sermons. (…) In general, the great scholastic theologians have not paid attention to this hypothesis ; but the canonists of the XIIth and XIIIth centuries know and comment the text of Gratian. All admitted without difficulty that the Pope could fall into heresy, as into any other grave fault ; they concerned themselves only with investigating why and in which conditions he could, in this case, be judged by the Church » [40].
An extract from a sermon of Pope Innocent III :
« The faith is necessary to me to such a point that, having God as sole judge for all other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for the sins that I could commit in matter of faith » [41].
One understands then to what extent V. Mondello had reason to write :
« Many in the Middle Ages admitted that a heretical Pope could be judged [42] by a Council ; we can go until saying that it was a very common doctrine at this epoch, even among the most convinced defenders of the Pope » [43].
To show that the Tradition provides weighty reasons against the first opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine – according to which a Pope could not become heretical – we estimate that it is not necessary here to extend our investigation to the later centuries. Indeed, in the following chapters, we will cite numerous documents of the six last centuries, so that it would be superfluous to indicate them already now.
- The response of the defenders of this opinion
By what reasons do the partisans of this first opinion make use to oppose to such testimonies of the Tradition, and to so many others which could be invoked?
Some of these authors, like Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez, recognise that such documents weaken the thesis of the impossibility of a heretical Pope.
However, there are some who attempt to contest the value of these documents. This is the case, for example, of Cardinal Billot [44]. He sustains that the allocution of Adrian II proves nothing, in the measure where Pope Honorius was in reality not heretical ; he contests the authenticity of the canon Si Papa of Gratian ; he sees in the words of Innocent III only an oratorical hyperbole.
Whatever it may be, however, Cardinal Billot has not denied – and he could not have denied – that the Church has always left open the question of the possibility of a heresy in the person of the Pope. Now, this fact, by itself, constitutes a weighty argument in the evaluation of the Tradition. This is what Saint Robert Bellarmine puts in relief in the following passage, in which he refutes, three centuries in advance, his future brother in the cardinalate and in the glorious Ignatian militia :
« On this subject, it must be noted that, although it is probable that Honorius was not heretical, and that Pope Adrian II, deceived by falsified documents of the VIth Council, has erred in judging Honorius as heretical, we cannot however deny that Adrian, with the Roman Synod and also with the entire eighth general Council, was of the opinion that, in case of heresy, the Roman Pontiff can be judged » [45].
- A simply probable opinion
As we have already observed in brief notes [46], in general, the partisans of this first opinion do not hesitate to study what procedure must be adopted in the case where the Pope would fall into heresy. They act thus because they do not consider their position as absolutely certain, but recognise that the other opinions enjoy at least an extrinsic probability. This explains the fact, at first sight strange, that the partisans of this opinion are often also indicated as partisans of other opinions.
Here is how Suarez expresses his thought on this subject :
« It seems conformable to the gentle Providence of God to never permit that he to whom it is never permitted to teach error should err in the faith. Consequently, one says that these two promises are included in these words : « I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not ».
Since, however, this opinion is not generally accepted and that the general Councils have sometimes admitted the hypothesis in discussion (of the heresy in the Pope), in supposing that it be at least possible, it must be said that, if he becomes heretical, the Pope would not fall ipso facto from his dignity, because of the loss of the faith, but (… etc.) » [47].
And Saint Robert Bellarmine writes :
« (…) there are five opinions on this question. The first is that of Albert Pighius (Hierarch. Eccles., lib. 4, cap. 8), for whom the Pope cannot be heretical and therefore cannot be deposed in any case. This opinion is probable and can be defended easily, as we will show later in its place. Since, however, it is not certain, and since THE COMMON OPINION IS TO THE OPPOSITE, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to this question, in the hypothesis where the Pope could be heretical » [48].
On the same subject, the following passage, from an eminent contemporary theologian, the Spanish Jesuit father Joaquín Salaverri, is also enlightening :
« As a private person, can the Pope fall into heresy? The theologians dispute on this question. To employ the words of Suarez, « it seems more pious and more probable » to admit that God will take care, by his Providence, « that a Pope never be heretical ». For this opinion, sustained by Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez, it was also praised at the Vatican Council I by the bishop Zinelli, orator of the faith, in these terms :
« Confident in the supernatural Providence, we judge that it is altogether probable that this will never happen. But God does not fail in the things necessary ; consequently, if he permits so great an evil, the means to remedy it will not be lacking » (Conc. Vatic., Mansi 52, 1109) » [49].
Notes :
[1] As it is evident, we do not discuss here the possibility that the Pope be in material heresy. Nobody denies that, by error or by inadvertence, the Sovereign Pontiff can fall into a material heresy, as a private person. As to the equivalent possibility touching the official but non-infallible documents, see pp. 195 and following.
[2] Lib. IV, C. VIII, Cologne, 1538, fol. CXXXI ss., cited by Dublanchy, article « Infallibility of the Pope », in Dict. de Théol. Cath., col. 1715.
[3] See pp. 147-148, 154-155.
[4] See pp. 147, 155.
[5] Text which we cite hereafter.
[6] See pp. 158-160.
[7] Note that Cardinal Billot does not qualify as « absolutely certain » the idea that the Pope cannot become heretical, but affirms that the passage of the Scriptures to which he makes allusion refers to Saint Peter and his successors – which no Catholic author can deny, whatever the exact sense of the promise made here by Our Lord.
[8] In general, the authors do not admit that the passage of the Gospel cited must necessarily apply to the person of the Pope in his declarations which are not ex cathedra. This is what we show further (p. 148) in citing Palmieri, Van Laak, Straub, Dublanchy.
[9] For the reasons exposed further (in particular those mentioned on pages 148 and following, as well as on page 172), it does not seem to us that the argument presented here by Saint Robert Bellarmine or by Cardinal Billot demonstrates the thesis which they sustain as being the most probable. There remains nevertheless in this argument an undeniably true foundation : the Providence could not permit that the adhesion of the Pope to heresy be something frequent and, so to speak, habitual. On the contrary, such a thing could be admitted only as exceptional, characterising one of the most dramatic and profound trials to which the Church militant can be submitted.
In taking the example itself of the mule of Balaam given by Saint Robert Bellarmine and by other partisans of this first opinion, we would say that the Providence would not have to permit that the mules speak normally and frequently, but that a single mule, that of Balaam, has spoken.
[10] Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, tomus I, pp. 609-610.
This last argument presented by Cardinal Billot does not seem to us either conclusive. Our Lord, who has permitted that the malice of men strike his own Person, to the point of leading Him to die on the cross, could He not permit that the ingratitude and the malice of men submit the Holy Church to a new Via Crucis? That such a thing can occur without breaking the promise of divine assistance is evident and was even prefigured in the fact that no bone of the sacred body of our Redeemer was broken during the Passion.
[11] See Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, article « Papa », col. 1843, n° 65 ; col. 1845.
This passage of Ferraris is reproduced by Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, tom. II, p. 658. The affirmation cited of Matthaeuccius is found in his work Controversiarum VII, Cap. I, n° 7.
[12] On this point, Suarez makes reference to Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, lib. 4, cap. 7.
[13] Suarez, De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, n. 11, p. 319. – It does not seem to us either that this last argument advanced by Suarez is decisive. For example, for the end of the world, Our Lord has prophesied terrible events (see Matthew 24, 1-41 ; Mark 13, 1-31 ; Luke 21, 5-33), which, under numerous aspects, will not have had precedents in all History.
[14] The following authors pronounce themselves in the same sense : Van Laak, Inst. Theol. Fund., Repert. I, pp. 508-509 ; Straub, De Eccl. Christ., II, n. 1068, pp. 479-480 (cited by Van Laak, op. cit., pp. 508-509) ; Dublanchy, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, article « Infallibility of the Pope », col. 1717.
[15] Palmieri, Tract. de Rom. Pont., pp. 631-632.
[16] Denz.-Sch. 550.
[17] Denz.-Sch. 551.
[18] Denz.-Sch. 552 – the terms of this condemnation authorise to conclude that the Council had anathematised Honorius as heretical. But this is not the sense generally attributed to the document. Moreover, Pope Saint Leo II, who has approved the Third Council of Constantinople, in other writings, has condemned Honorius only as favouring heresy (we present hereafter these declarations of Saint Leo II to complete the documentation on this point).
[19] Denz.-Sch. 563.
[20] Denz.-Sch. 561.
[21] Denz.-Sch. 561.
[22] H. Baeumer, article « Honorius I » in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 1961 – cited by Hans Küng, Structures…, pages 304-305.
[23] V. Mondello, La Dottrina del Caeteno …, p. 25 ; see also p. 164 – The author reproduces, on these subjects, the affirmation made by V. Martin in his work, Les Origines du Gallicanisme, tome II, chap. I, pp. 12-13. As it is evident, the term « judged » does not indicate necessarily, in this passage of V. Mondello, that a Council could pronounce a true « judgement » on a Pope. But in the context, the term signifies, according to the traditional authors, that a Council can pronounce a judgement on someone who was Pope and has ceased to be because he has fallen into heresy. – We explain this problem more in detail on pages 161 (note 1) and 175 (point 5 and note 7).
[24] On page 154, a commentary in this sense of Saint Robert Bellarmine has been cited, concerning the text mentioned here.
[25] Adrian II, allocutio III, read at the council VIII, act 7, cited by Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, tome I, p. 611 – See also Hefele-Leclercq, tome V, pp. 471-472.
[26] In this case, as in that of Pope Honorius, our objective is not to take position with regard to a historical question. We wish only to show that theologians of authority have admitted the possibility of heresy in the person of the Sovereign Pontiff.
[27] Letter of Saint Bruno of Segni to Pascal II, written in 1111 – Patrologia Latina, tome 163, column 463. See also Baronius, Annales, year 1111, n° 30, p. 228 ; Hefele-Leclercq, tome V, part I, p. 530.
[28] Letter to the bishops and cardinals : Patrologia Latina, tome 165, column 1139. See also the letter of Saint Bruno to the bishop of Porto : Patrologia Latina, tome 165, column 1139, also cited by Baronius, Annales, year 1111, n° 31, p. 228.
[29] Cited by Baronius, Annales, year 1111, n° 32, p. 228. See also : Hefele-Leclercq, tome V, part I, p. 530 ; Rohrbacher, Histoire universelle de l’Église catholique, tome XV, p. 130.
[30] Cited by Hefele-Leclercq, tome V, part I, p. 555.
[31] Hefele-Leclercq, tome V, part I, p. 555.
[32] Cited by Bouix, Tract. de Papa, tom. II, p. 650. – See also : Hefele-Leclercq, tom. V, part I, p. 536 ; Rohrbacher, Hist. Univ. de L’Église Cath., tom. XV, p. 61.
[33] Geoffroi, abbot-cardinal of Vendôme, has expressed the same opinions : see Rohrbacher, Hist. Univ. de L’Égl. Cath., tome XV, pp. 63-64.
[34] Hefele-Leclercq, tom. V, part I, pp. 536-537.
[35] See : Bouix, Tract. de Papa, tom. II, pp. 650-651 ; Rohrbacher, Hist. Univ. de L’Église Cath., tome XV, pp. 61-63. Saint Yves of Chartres, who has taken this decision with other bishops, explains his attitude in a letter addressed to the archbishop of Lyon (P. L., 162, 238 sq.).
[36] It seems that this dispute, which divided even the saints who opposed to Pascal II, has had for origin a certain confusion which persisted concerning the concept of heretic. Some said that, since the Pope had not affirmed the heresy, he was not heretical. Others sustained that having acted in a manner contrary to a defined dogma, he was heretical. The later theology has better clarified the principle according to which it is possible to fall into heresy not only in denying explicitly a dogma, but also by acts which reveal in an unequivocal manner a heretical spirit (we have developed this theme in the article « The acts, gestures, attitudes and omissions can reveal a heretic », in Catholicismo, n° 204, December 1967). Consequently, Saint Yves had reason to sustain that the simple fact of acting in a manner opposed to a dogma had not made of Pascal II a heretic. But, in his writings, one does not see that he has considered the other aspect of the question : acting continually in a manner contrary to a dogma can suffice to reveal a heretic. On their side, the bishops reunited at Vienne had reason when they said that it is possible to fall into heresy not only by words, but also by acts ; but it is not certain that they have taken into account that such acts reveal a heretic only when they manifest, in all the circumstances considered, a heretical spirit in an unequivocal manner. A simple pusillanimity, for example, even prolonged, does not constitute a heresy. This must have been, as the historians admit generally, the case of Pascal II.
[37] P. L., tom. 162, col. 240.
[38] The Decretum attributed to Saint Yves of Chartres contains also a reference to the possibility of a heretical Pope, as we indicate on this same page. We do not give it a particular importance because its authority is today put in doubt. It is nevertheless undeniable that this decree receives a non-negligible recognition as an expression of the medieval thought.
[39] Pars I, dist. 40, cap. 6, Canon « Si Papa », – The Decretum of Gratian has been composed in the first half of the XIIth century, probably around the year 1140.
[40] Dublanchy, article « Infallibility of the Pope », in Dict. de Théol. Cath., cols. 1714-1715. – Another canon of Gratian is also interpreted, by authors like Cajetan (De Comparatione …, p. 170) and Suarez (De Fide, disp. X, cap. VI, n. 15, p. 320), in the sense that a Pope declared heretical would be deprived of his charge. It is a question of the chapter Oves (C. 13, c. 2, q. 7), attributed to Pope Saint Eusebius (this canon would be of pseudo-Isidore, according to what concludes Bernardi, Gratian. Canon. Geniun., pars II, tom. II, cap. 29, p. 138, cited by Phillips, Du Droit Eccl., vol. I, pp. 179-180).
[41] Cited by Billot, Tract. de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, p. 610. See also Sermo IV in cons. Pont., P. L., 217, 670. Although such declarations are obviously not definitions of faith, they have nevertheless a great authority, coming from a Pope who was an intransigent and intrepid defender of the pontifical prerogatives.
[42] For the non-conciliarist acceptance of the term « judged », in this context, see note 2 of page 150.
[43] V. Mondello, La Dottrina del Gaetano…, p. 25.
[44] Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, tome I, pp. 610-612. See also : Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, tome II, pp. 658-659 ; Phillips, Du Droit Ecclésiastique, volume I, pp. 179-180.
[45] Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, p. 418.
[46] See the note relative to the synoptic schema of page 145, as well as the note 6 of page 146.
[47] Suarez, De Legibus, lib. IV, cap. 7, n 10, p. 361. – To what follows, Suarez defends his opinion (see pages 161 ff.).
[48] Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., lib. II, cap. 30, p. 418. The capital letters are ours.
[49] Salaverri, De Eccl. Christi, p. 718.