It is “impossible”

that a Pope become a heretic

First opinion: God will never permit

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

 

1. Introduction

 

2. Arguments of Cardinal Billot

 

3. Nuances within this first opinion

 

4. Arguments contrary to this first opinion

 

4.1. Sacred Scripture

 

4.2. Tradition

 

4.2.a. Documents relating to Pope Honorius

 

4.2.b. During the pontificate of Paschal II (1099-1118)

 

4.2.c. From Gratian to our own day

 

5. Reply of the defenders of this opinion

 

6. An opinion that is merely probable

 

Notes

 

 

 

1. Introduction:

 

We shall 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 hold, on the basis of rational arguments as well as of Scripture and Tradition, that Our Lord will never permit any successor of Saint Peter to come to lose the faith [1].

 

The first defender of this opinion appears to have been Albert Pighius, a Dutch theologian of the sixteenth century, in his work Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae Assertio [2].

 

Since then, many authors have adopted the affirmation or simply the possibility of this position. The most significant among them, by the authority they enjoy and by the attention they devote to the question, are: Suarez [3], Saint Robert Bellarmine [4], Cardinal Billot [5] and the nineteenth-century French canonist D. Bouix [6].

 

2. Let us see how Cardinal Billot defends his position:

 

“Admitting the hypothesis that the Pope has become notoriously heretical, one must concede, 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 an unbeliever (…)

 

“I have said: ‘admitting the hypothesis’. But it seems far more probable that this hypothesis is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to act, by virtue of what Saint Luke says (22, 32):

 

‘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 of all his successors is what the voice of Tradition attests, and what we shall demonstrate ex professo later, when treating of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. For the present we shall 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 as regards his preservation from heresy [8]. Indeed, to the Pontiff has been given the ordinary office of confirming the others in the faith. For this reason Christ – who, because of his dignity, is understood in everything – asks for him the gift of an indefectible faith. But in whose favour, I ask, is this prayer made? Of an abstract and metaphysical person, or rather of a real and living person, upon whom it falls to confirm the others? Or will one perhaps call indefectible in the faith him who cannot err in establishing what the others must believe, but who personally can make shipwreck in the faith?

 

“And – observe – even if the Pontiff, falling into notorious heresy, lost the pontificate ipso facto, he would nevertheless fall logically into heresy before losing his office; that being so, 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.

 

“Still more: if, considering the providence of God, it cannot happen that the Pontiff fall into occult or simply internal heresy, because 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 a heretic, even by losing the faith in the internal forum only.

 

‘For – writes Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, c. 6) – the Pontiff not only must not and cannot preach heresy, but he must also always teach the truth, and without doubt he will do so, given that 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, no doubt, draw from a heretical heart a confession of the true faith, as he once made Balaam’s ass speak. But that would be rather violent and not at all in conformity with the manner of acting of divine Providence, which disposes all things with sweetness [9].’

 

“Finally, if the hypothesis of a Pope become notoriously heretical became a reality, the Church would be plunged into such and so many afflictions that one can already perceive a priori that God would never permit it [10].”

 

3. Nuances within this first opinion

 

Among the positions adopted by the defenders of this first opinion there exist certain nuances that it is fitting to bring out.

 

– There are those who think that this opinion constitutes a truth of faith. Such was, for example, the view of Matthaeucci, a Franciscan theologian who died in 1722 [11].

 

– Other authors, among them Cardinal Billot, whom we quote above, do not think that this opinion constitutes a truth of faith, but class it as by far the most probable, diminishing the probability of the opposite opinions.

 

– Others, finally, defend this position in a still less rigid manner. Such is the case of Suarez and of Saint Robert Bellarmine. It does not seem to them that the passage of Saint Luke (22, 32) is decisive, while they judge that certain documents of Tradition, which admit the hypothesis of a heretical Pope, have a value superior to that attributed to them, for example, by Cardinal Billot.

 

We can see that even the tone of Suarez’s argumentation differs from that which we can note in the passage cited from Cardinal Billot:

 

“Although many [12] may hold, with likelihood, that the Pope can fall into heresy, it seems to me nevertheless, 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 harm to the Church, the gentlest manner of acting of Providence would be that, having promised that the Pope would never err in defining, God would consequently provide that he never become a heretic. Moreover, it must be considered that what up to the present has never happened in the Church, by the order and providence of God, cannot happen” [13].

 

4. Arguments contrary to this opinion

 

Against this first opinion one may object, on the one hand, that the cited passage 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 Tradition in favour of the possibility of heresy in the person of the Pope.

 

4.1. Sacred Scripture

 

As to the exact sense of the text of Saint Luke, many theologians hold in fact that, for the fulfilment of Our Lord’s promise, it suffices that there be no errors in the infallible documents. Thus they conclude that there is not sufficient reason to judge that “the confirmation of the brethren” also postulates the indefectibility of the Pope’s faith as a private person.

 

Editorial note:

 

Our Lord prayed that Saint Peter might not fail in the faith. The First Vatican Council teaches that this promise founds the divine assistance granted to the pontifical magisterium when it fulfils the conditions of infallibility.

 

It is fitting further to remark that the First Vatican Council, while defining with precision pontifical infallibility (Pastor Aeternus, chap. IV; Denz.-Sch. 3073-3075), never defined that it would be absolutely impossible for a Pope, considered as a private person, to fall into heresy. If the Fathers of the Council had judged this doctrine revealed or theologically certain, they would naturally have taken advantage of that definition to proclaim it. Their silence shows on the contrary that this question remained freely disputed among Catholic theologians.

 

Let us see, for example, how Palmieri [14] sets forth 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 the same; being infallible, it enjoys equally the power of confirming the brethren. The indefectibility of the Pontiff in the faith was asked so that he might confirm his brethren; consequently, from the words of Christ one cannot infer as necessary anything but the indefectibility that is indispensable and sufficient to attain that end; and such is the infallibility of authentic preaching [15].”

 

4.2. Tradition

 

We indicate here some documents of Tradition that admit the possibility that the Pope fall into heresy.

 

4.2.a. Documents relating to Pope Honorius (585 – 638 A.D.)

 

There exist no historical proofs that would permit one to affirm that Pope Honorius I was a heretic; it is however certain that his letters to Patriarch Sergius favoured the Monothelite heresy, according to which there is only one (physical) will in Our Lord Jesus Christ: his divine will. The will being a faculty proper to the rational soul, to deny the human will amounts to denying the existence of a true human soul in Christ. Monothelitism derives from Monophysitism (Eutyches), and by its denial of the human will it approaches Apollinarism.

 

Since it is a question of favouring heresy by a Pope, and not of heresy as such, the case of Honorius does not relate directly to our subject. Indeed Pope Honorius, in accepting the formula “there is only one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ”, wished to say that He had only one moral will, his human will being always subject and in unison with his divine will. 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, hoping that the heresy would die out of itself with the passing of time, fearing that too severe condemnations would provoke new persecutions. But no, on the contrary the Monothelites exploited this ambiguity, 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.

 

It is important for us, however, to observe that this case, perhaps more than other analogous cases recorded by history, furnished an occasion for Popes, Councils, Saints, bishops and theologians to manifest their conviction that the hypothesis of a heretical Pope was not theologically absurd, but they well examined the Pope’s formulation in order to verify its eventual orthodoxy or heresy.

 

Indeed, we present below documents that admit directly the possibility of a heretical Pontiff, as well as others that admit it only indirectly. In this second group are found, for example, the documents that show that the orthodoxy of the Pope was positively suspected. As is evident, such a suspicion would be vain and absurd for one who believed the defection of the Roman Pontiff in the faith to be impossible. Accusations of favouring 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 a heretic.

 

The Third Council of Constantinople, the Sixth Ecumenical, declares that it analysed the dogmatic epistles of 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 anathematized 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 anathematized, because we have verified by his writing sent to Sergius that he followed the latter’s thought in everything and confirmed his impious principles” [18].

 

In condemning Honorius as favouring heresy, Pope Saint Leo II (+683) wrote:

 

“We also anathematize the inventors of the new error: Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus (…) and also Honorius, who did not enlighten this apostolic Church with the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but permitted, by a sacrilegious betrayal, that the immaculate faith be stained” [19].

 

In a letter to the bishops of Spain, the same Saint Leo II declares that Honorius was condemned because “(…) he did not extinguish, as befitted his apostolic authority, the nascent flame of heresy, but fanned it by his negligence” [20].

 

And in a letter to Erwig, king of Spain, Saint Leo II repeats that, with the heresiarchs mentioned, was condemned “(…) Honorius of Rome, who consented that the immaculate faith of the apostolic tradition which he had received from his predecessors be stained” [21].

 

Also concerning the case of Pope Honorius, R. Baeumer writes:

 

“Thereafter, this condemnation (of Honorius, by the Sixth Ecumenical Council) was 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, attenuated the fault of Honorius (…). The account of the condemnation of Honorius even entered the Liber Diurnus. Every newly elected Pope had to condemn the authors of the new heresy, ‘with Honorius, who 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 eighth 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 shall see, whatever judgment is passed on the case of Honorius I, we have here a pontifical declaration that admits the eventuality that a Pope fall into heresy [24]. Here are the words of Adrian II, pronounced in the second half of the ninth century, that is 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 the patriarchs and bishops); but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that after his death Honorius was anathematized by the Orientals; but it must be remembered that he was accused of heresy, the only crime that renders legitimate the resistance of inferiors to superiors, as well as the rejection of their pernicious doctrines” [25].

 

To be complete and just it must still be remarked that Pope Honorius was accused of heresy only by a council (the Third of Constantinople) and only by that part (of the acts of the council) which was not confirmed by a pope. Some popes, such as Saint Leo II, on the contrary accused Pope Honorius only of favouring heresy (of “semi-heresy”, of suspicion of heresy). We shall see (in the chapter on the fifth opinion of St Bellarmine) that the papacy is lost only by a public heresy. That is why Honorius was never considered to have lost his office of pope by heresy, although he is therefore clearly condemned several times, by several pontifical and conciliar documents, for favouring heresy (“semi-heresy”).

 

4.2.b. During the pontificate of Paschal II (1099-1118)

 

The question of investitures again shook Christendom. Emperor Henry V, holding the Pope prisoner, extorted from him concessions and promises irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. Having recovered his liberty, Paschal II long hesitated to retract the acts he had accomplished under constraint. Despite the repeated admonitions of Saints, cardinals and bishops, his retraction and the hoped-for excommunication of the emperor were always postponed by him. Then there began to arise throughout the Church a murmur against the Pope, qualifying him as suspect of heresy and adjuring him to retract under pain of losing the pontificate.

 

We cite here some facts and documents of the struggle that the Saints, cardinals and bishops waged against Paschal II. One will thus see that the theology of the time admitted the hypothesis of a heretical Pope and judged that, by reason 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 Paschal II in Italy. We possess no document in which he declared in an indisputable manner that he judged the Pope suspect of heresy. Nevertheless, that is the accusation that his letters and his acts insinuated without equivocation.

 

To Paschal II he wrote: “(…) I esteem you as my father and lord (…). I must love you; nevertheless, I must love still more Him who 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, from the time of the Apostles to you. (…) The Apostles 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 whoever would contradict it is not Catholic. For only those are Catholic who do not oppose the faith and the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and, on the contrary, they are heretics 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 circumstances, act in a manner not conformable to the true doctrine [28]. However, this reservation is not sufficient to exempt Paschal II from the suspicion of heresy, because 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 remove 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 take from me, with his arguments, 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:

 

“God be praised! For behold the Pope himself has condemned this so-called privilege (of investiture by the temporal power), which is heretical” [30].

 

With this sentence, Saint Bruno let it be understood publicly, for the first time, to what point he suspected the orthodoxy of Paschal II. At this his enemies protested energetically; the most eminent of them was the abbot of Cluny, John of Gaeta, “who – we read in Hefele-Leclercq – did not want to permit the Pope to be accused of heresy” [31].

 

Saint Bruno of Segni was not the only saint of the time who admitted the possibility of a heresy in Paschal II.

 

In 1112, Archbishop Guido of Vienne, future Pope Callistus II, convened a provincial synod, in 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 Paschal II, explicable only by the fact that in the mind of the bishops assembled at Vienne three notions were united:

 

first, they were convinced that it constituted a heresy to deny the doctrine of the Church on investitures;

 

second, they suspected that the Pope had embraced this heresy;

 

and third, they considered that a Pope, in the eventuality of being a heretic, would lose his office, and should therefore no longer be obeyed [33].

 

This interpretation is confirmed, in such a way as to eliminate all doubt, by the letters written on this occasion by Saint Ivo of Chartres, to which we allude below.

 

After relating the events of the synod of Vienne, Hefele-Leclercq writes:

 

“The result was that, on 20 October of that 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 that led the Pope to adopt this attitude” [34].

 

To discredit this provincial synod of Vienne, one might argue that another saint, Bishop Ivo of Chartres, refused to participate in it, alleging that no one could judge the Pope [35].

 

We have no intention here of studying the history of the synod of Vienne. We cite it solely to show that, at the time, two saints and a future Pope adopted an attitude towards Paschal II based on the principles that there could be a heretical Pope, and that in such a case the Pontiff would lose his office. Consequently, it is solely under this angle that we shall analyse the position of Saint Ivo of Chartres.

 

He was also opposed to the concessions made by Paschal II to the emperor. He said that the Pope ought to be warned and exhorted by the bishops so that he might repair the evil done. He was however in disagreement with the synod of Vienne, because he did not consider that the Pope’s attitude in the question of investitures implied a heresy [36]. He affirmed, consequently, that Paschal II could not be submitted to the judgment of men, whatever the gravity of his weaknesses. Yet Saint Ivo recognized explicitly in his letter, which constitutes for us an important testimony on the possibility of the Pope’s defection in the faith, that the Pontiff, in the eventuality of being a heretic, would lose his office. Here are his words:

 

“(…) we do not wish to deprive the principal keys of the Church (that is the Pope) of their power, whatever the person placed on the See of Peter, unless he manifestly departs from the evangelical truth” [37].

 

Consequently, the attitude adopted by Saint Ivo of Chartres is not opposed, from the point of view that concerns us at this moment, to that of Saint Godfrey of Amiens and Saint Hugh of Grenoble, but on the contrary corroborates it [38].

 

4.2.c. From Gratian to our own day

 

In the Decretum of Gratian appears the following canon, attributed to Saint Boniface the martyr:

 

“Let no mortal have the presumption to accuse the Pope of a fault, for, being charged with judging all, he must be judged by no one, unless he departs from the faith” [39].

 

In the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Dublanchy furnishes some expressive data on the influence of this canon in the fixation of 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 Mainz, and already cited as such by Cardinal Deusdedit (+1087) and by Saint Ivo 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 did not pay attention to this hypothesis; but the canonists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries know and comment on the text of Gratian. All admitted without difficulty that the Pope could fall into heresy, as into any other grave fault; they were concerned only with investigating why and under what conditions he could, in that 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 nevertheless be judged by the Church for the sins I might commit in matter of faith” [41].

 

One then understands to what point V. Mondello was right to write:

 

“Many in the Middle Ages admitted that a heretical Pope could be judged [42] by a Council; we can go so far as to say that it was a very common doctrine at that time, even among the most convinced defenders of the Pope” [43].

 

To show that Tradition furnishes weighty reasons against the first opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmine – according to which a Pope could not become a heretic – we judge that it is not necessary here to extend our investigation to the subsequent centuries. Indeed, in the following chapters we shall cite numerous documents of the last six centuries, so that it would be superfluous to indicate them already now.

 

5. The reply of the defenders of this opinion

 

Of what reasons do the partisans of this first opinion avail themselves to oppose such testimonies of Tradition, and so many others that could be invoked?

 

Some of these authors, such as Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez, recognize that such documents weaken the thesis of the impossibility of a heretical Pope.

 

There are however some who attempt to contest the value of these documents. Such is the case, for example, of Cardinal Billot [44]. He maintains that the allocution of Adrian II proves nothing, inasmuch as Pope Honorius was not in reality a heretic; he contests the authenticity of Gratian’s canon Si Papa; he sees in the words of Innocent III only an oratorical hyperbole.

 

Be that as it may, however, Cardinal Billot did not deny – 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 Tradition. This is what Saint Robert Bellarmine brings out 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 a heretic, and that Pope Adrian II, deceived by falsified documents of the Sixth Council, erred in judging Honorius as a heretic, we cannot however deny that Adrian, with the Roman Synod and also with the whole Eighth General Council, was of the opinion that, in case of heresy, the Roman Pontiff can be judged” [45].

 

6. An opinion that is merely probable

 

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 recognize that the other opinions enjoy at least an extrinsic probability. This explains the fact, strange at first sight, 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 never to permit him to whom it is never permitted to teach error to err in the faith. Consequently, it is said 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 the general Councils have sometimes admitted the hypothesis under discussion (of heresy in the Pope), supposing that it is at least possible, it must be said that, if he becomes a heretic, the Pope would not fall ipso facto from his dignity, by reason of the loss of faith, but (… etc.)” [47].

 

It is particularly significant that Suarez, yet one of the principal defenders of this first opinion, qualifies it only as “more pious and more probable” (pius et probabilior), without ever attributing to it a theological certainty. Such a qualification shows that he implicitly recognizes that the adverse opinions retain a true theological probability and that they cannot be set aside as contrary to the faith.

 

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 a heretic and therefore cannot be deposed in any case. This opinion is probable and can be easily defended, as we shall show later in its place. Since, however, it is not certain, and since THE COMMON OPINION IS TO THE CONTRARY, it is useful to examine what solution ought to be given to this question, on the hypothesis that the Pope could be a heretic” [48].

 

This remark of Saint Robert Bellarmine possesses a great theological importance. Indeed, when he affirms that “the common opinion is to the contrary”, he notes a doctrinal fact of his time: the majority of Catholic theologians admitted as at least possible the hypothesis of a Pope falling into heresy. Hence the first opinion, even defended by authors of the first rank such as Pighius, Suarez or Billot, cannot be presented as a certain doctrine of the Church. It remains a probable theological opinion, but not defined, since it is expressly recognized as contradicted by the common opinion of the doctors.

 

On the same subject, the following passage, of an eminent contemporary theologian, the Spanish Jesuit Father Joaquín Salaverri, is also illuminating:

 

“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 a heretic’. For this opinion, supported by Saint Robert Bellarmine and Suarez, it was also praised at the First Vatican Council by Bishop Zinelli, orator of the faith, in these terms:

 

‘Trusting in supernatural Providence, we judge that it is altogether probable that this will never happen. But God does not fail in 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].

 

In definitive, the principal defenders of this first opinion themselves recognize that it is not demonstrated in an apodictic manner. Bellarmine qualifies it as “probable”, Suarez as “more probable”, Billot as “very probable”. None of them dares to present it as a doctrine defined by the Church. This convergence is highly significant: if the greatest defenders of this opinion themselves refuse to attribute to it a theological certainty, it would be methodologically unjustifiable to present it today as a certain truth or still less as a dogma. The question therefore remains open to another solution.

 

Notes:

 

[1] As is evident, we do not discuss here the possibility that the Pope be in material heresy. No one denies that, by error or inadvertence, the Sovereign Pontiff can fall into a material heresy, as a private person. As regards the equivalent possibility touching 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 that we cite subsequently.

 

[6] See pp. 158-160.

 

[7] Note that Cardinal Billot does not qualify as “absolutely certain” the idea that the Pope cannot become a heretic, but affirms that the scriptural passage to which allusion is made 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 cited Gospel passage must necessarily apply to the person of the Pope in his declarations that are not ex cathedra. This is what we show further on (p. 148) in citing Palmieri, Van Laak, Straub, Dublanchy.

 

[9] For the reasons set forth further on (especially 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 they support as being the most probable. There remains nevertheless in this argument an undeniably true foundation: Providence could not permit that the Pope’s adhesion to heresy be something frequent and, so to speak, habitual. On the contrary, such a thing could be admitted only as exceptional, characterizing one of the most dramatic and profound trials to which the Church militant can be submitted.

 

Taking the very example of Balaam’s mule given by Saint Robert Bellarmine and by other partisans of this first opinion, we would say that Providence would not have to permit that mules speak normally and frequently, but that a single mule, that of Balaam, spoke.

 

[10] Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, tomus I, pp. 609-610.

 

This last argument presented by Cardinal Billot does not seem to us conclusive either. Our Lord, who 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 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 cited affirmation of Matthaeuccius is found in his work Controversiarum VII, Cap. I, n° 7.

 

[12] On this point, Suárez refers 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 prophesied terrible events (see Matthew 24, 1-41; Mark 13, 1-31; Luke 21, 5-33), which, under many aspects, will not have had precedents in all of 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 Romano Pontifice, pp. 631-632.

 

[16] Denz.-Sch. 550.

 

[17] Denz.-Sch. 551.

 

[18] Denz.-Sch. 552 – the terms of this condemnation authorize one to conclude that the Council had anathematized Honorius as a heretic. But that is not the sense generally attributed to the document. Moreover, Pope Saint Leo II, who approved the Third Council of Constantinople, in other writings 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] R. Baeumer, article “Honorius I” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 1961 – cited by H. 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 is evident, the term “judged” does not necessarily indicate, in this passage of V. Mondello, that a Council could bear a true “judgment” on a Pope. But in the context, the term means, according to the traditional authors, that a Council can pronounce a judgment on someone who was Pope and has ceased to be so because he has fallen into heresy. – We explain this problem in more 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 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 object is not to take a position with regard to a historical question. We wish solely 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 Paschal 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] Geoffrey, abbot-cardinal of Vendôme, 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 Ivo of Chartres, who took this decision with other bishops, explains his attitude in a letter addressed to the archbishop of Lyons (P. L., 162, 238 sq.).

 

[36] It seems that this dispute, which divided even the saints who opposed Paschal II, had for origin a certain confusion that persisted concerning the concept of heretic. Some said that, since the Pope had not affirmed the heresy, he was not a heretic. Others maintained that having acted in a manner contrary to a defined dogma, he was a heretic. Subsequent theology has better clarified the principle according to which it is possible to fall into heresy not only by explicitly denying a dogma, but also by acts that reveal in a non-equivocal manner a heretical mind (we have developed this theme in the article “Acts, gestures, attitudes and omissions can reveal a heretic”, in Catholicismo, n° 204, December 1967). Consequently, Saint Ivo was right to maintain that the simple fact of acting in a manner opposed to a dogma had not made Paschal II a heretic. But, in his writings, one does not see that he 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 assembled at Vienne were right 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 took into account that such acts reveal a heretic only when they manifest, in all the circumstances considered, a heretical mind in a non-equivocal manner. A simple pusillanimity, for example, even prolonged, does not constitute a heresy. That must have been, as historians generally admit, the case of Paschal II.

 

[37] P. L., tom. 162, col. 240.

 

[38] The Decretum attributed to Saint Ivo of Chartres also contains 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 medieval thought.

 

[39] Pars I, dist. 40, cap. 6, Canon “Si Papa”, – The Decretum of Gratian was composed in the first half of the twelfth 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 such as Cajetan (De Comparatione …, p. 170) and Suarez (De Fide, disp. X, cap. VI, n. 15, p. 320), in the sense that a Pope declared a heretic would be deprived of his office. It is chapter Oves (C. 13, c. 2, q. 7), attributed to Pope Saint Eusebius (this canon would be of Pseudo-Isidore, according to what Bernardi concludes, 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 evidently 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 note 6 of page 146.

 

[47] Suarez, De Legibus, lib. IV, cap. 7, n 10, p. 361. – After what follows, Suarez defends his opinion (see pages 161 ff.).

 

[48] Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, p. 418. The capital letters are ours.

 

[49] Salaverri, De Eccl. Christi, p. 718.