“It is impossible for a Pope to become a heretic”
First opinion: God will never permit the Pope
to fall into heresy
Main source: “La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI : qu’en penser ?” 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 Paschal II (1099-1118)
4.2.c. From Gratian to our days
-
- Response of the defenders of this opinion
- A merely probable opinion
- Introduction:
We shall adopt the classification presented by Saint Robert Bellarmin 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 lose the faith.
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.
Since then, many authors have adopted the assertion 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, Saint Robert Bellarmin, Cardinal Billot and the French canonist of the nineteenth century, D. Bouix.
- Let us see how Cardinal Billot defends his position:
“Admitting the hypothesis that the Pope has become a notorious heretic, it must be conceded, without hesitation, that he would lose the pontifical power ipso facto, since he would have, by his own will, placed himself outside the body of the Church, by becoming an unbeliever (…)
“I have said: ‘admitting the hypothesis’. But it seems by 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 attested by the voice of Tradition, and what we shall demonstrate ex professo later, when treating of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. For the moment, we shall consider this as absolutely certain.
“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. Indeed, the ordinary function of confirming the others in the faith has been given to the Pontiff. For this reason, Christ – who, because of His dignity, is understood in everything – 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 belongs to confirm the others? Or shall we perhaps call indefectible in the faith one who cannot err in establishing what others must believe, but who personally can suffer shipwreck in the faith?
“And – observe – even if the Pontiff, falling into notorious heresy, lost the pontificate ipso facto, he would nevertheless logically fall into heresy before losing his office; this being so, defectibility in the faith would coexist with the duty of confirming his brethren, which the promise of Christ seems to exclude absolutely.
“Moreover: if, considering the providence of God, it cannot happen that the Pontiff falls into an occult or merely internal heresy, because that would entail concomitant evils that are far worse. Now, the order established by God absolutely requires that, as a private person, the Sovereign Pontiff cannot be a heretic, even losing the faith in the internal forum only.
“For – writes Saint Robert Bellarmin (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 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, draw from a heretical heart a confession of the true faith, as He formerly made the ass of Balaam 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.”
“Finally, if the hypothesis of a Pope become a notorious heretic became 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.”
- 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 highlight.
– 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.
– Other authors, among whom Cardinal Billot, whom we quote above, do not think that this opinion constitutes a truth of faith, but classify it as by far the most probable, diminishing the probability of the opposing opinions.
– Others, finally, defend this position in a still less rigid manner. This is the case of Suarez and Saint Robert Bellarmin. It does not seem to them that the passage of Saint Luke (22:32) is decisive, while still esteeming 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 the argumentation of Suarez differs from that which we can note in the passage quoted from Cardinal Billot:
“Although many may hold, with probability, 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 by ignorance but not in a contumacious manner. For, although God can prevent a heretical Pope from causing harm 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 would consequently provide that he never become a heretic. Moreover, it must be considered that what until now has never happened in the Church, by the order and providence of God, cannot happen.”
- Arguments contrary to this opinion
Against this first opinion, one can object, on the one hand, that the quoted 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. Holy Scripture
As for the exact sense of the text of Saint Luke, many theologians indeed hold that, for the fulfilment 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” also postulates the indefectibility of the faith of the Pope as a private person.
Editorial note:
Our Lord prayed that Saint Peter not fail in the faith. The First Vatican Council teaches that this promise grounds the divine assistance granted to the pontifical magisterium when it fulfils the conditions of infallibility.
It is moreover fitting 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 esteemed this doctrine revealed or theologically certain, they would naturally have taken advantage of this 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 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 the same; being infallible, it also enjoys 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 that indefectibility which is indispensable and sufficient to attain this end; and such is the infallibility of authentic preaching.”
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
There exist no historical proofs that 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 is to deny the existence of a true human soul in Christ. It is a variant of Arianism.
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 the pope Honorius in accepting the formula “there is only one will in Our Lord Jesus Christ” meant that He had only one moral will, His human will always being submitted 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 by itself with the passing of time, fearing that too severe condemnations might 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 made 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, 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 did examine well the formulation of the pope to verify its orthodoxy or eventual 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 impossible the defection of the Roman Pontiff in the faith. The 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.”
After having anathematised the principal Monothelite heresiarchs, 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 everything and has confirmed his impious principles.”
In condemning Honorius as favouring heresy, Pope Saint Leo II (+683) wrote:
“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 soiled.”
In a letter to the bishops of Spain, the same Saint Leo II declares that Honorius was condemned because “(…) he has not extinguished, as befitted his apostolic authority, the nascent flame of heresy, but has fanned it by his negligence.”
And in a letter to Erwig, king of Spain, Saint Leo II repeats that, with the mentioned heresiarchs, was condemned “(…) Honorius of Rome, who consented that the immaculate faith of the apostolic tradition which he had received from his predecessors be soiled.”
Also concerning the case of Pope Honorius, R. Baeumer writes:
“Subsequently, 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. Each 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 (…)”
Consequently, the assertion 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” 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 quoted 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. 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 the bishops); but we do not read that anyone has ever judged him. It is true that after his death, Honorius was anathematised by the Orientals; but it must be recalled 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.”
To be complete and just it is still necessary to remark that Pope Honorius was accused of heresy only by one council (the Third of Constantinople) and only by its part (the acts of the council) which was not confirmed by a pope. Some popes, like Saint Leo II, on the contrary accused pope Honorius only of favouring heresy (of “semi-heresy”, of suspect of heresy). We shall see (in the chapter on the 5th opinion of St Bellarmin) 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 shook Christendom again. The 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 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 there began to arise in the whole Church a murmur against the Pope, qualifying him as suspect of heresy and adjuring him to retract under pain of losing the pontificate.
We quote here some facts and documents of the struggle that the Saints, the cardinals and the bishops waged against Paschal II. One will thus see that the theology of the epoch admitted the hypothesis of a heretical Pope and judged that, by reason of such a sin, he would lose the pontificate.
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, it 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 until 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 Catholics 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. (…)”
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 conformed to the true doctrine. However, this reservation is not sufficient to exempt Paschal 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 set aside 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.”
And when, finally, the Pope retracted, before the synod convoked at Rome to examine the question, Saint Bruno of Segni exclaimed:
“May God be praised! For behold the Pope himself has condemned this pretended privilege (of investiture by temporal power), which is heretical.”
With this phrase, Saint Bruno publicly hinted, for the first time, to what extent he suspected the orthodoxy of Paschal II. To this, his enemies protested energetically; the most eminent among them was the abbot of Cluny, John of Gaeta, “who – we read in Hefele-Leclercq – did not want to permit that the Pope be accused of heresy.”
Saint Bruno of Segni was not the only saint of the epoch who admitted the possibility of a heresy in Paschal II.
In 1112, the archbishop Guido of Vienne, future Pope Callistus II, convoked a provincial synod, at 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.”
These words contain a threat of rupture with Paschal II, explicable only by the fact that in the mind of the bishops gathered at Vienne, three notions were united:
firstly, they were convinced that it constituted a heresy to deny the doctrine of the Church on investitures;
secondly, they suspected that the Pope had embraced this heresy;
and thirdly, they considered that a Pope, in the eventuality of being a heretic, would lose his office, and therefore should no longer be obeyed.
This interpretation is confirmed, in a manner that eliminates all doubt, by the letters written on this occasion by Saint Ivo of Chartres, to which we allude hereafter.
After having related the events of the synod of Vienne, Hefele-Leclercq writes:
“The result was that, on the 20th of 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 was the fear of a schism that led the Pope to adopt this attitude.”
To discredit this provincial synod of Vienne, one could argue that another saint, the bishop Ivo of Chartres, refused to participate in it, alleging that no one could judge the Pope.
We have no intention here of studying the history of the synod of Vienne. We quote it only to show that, at that 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 only 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 had to 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 investitures implied a heresy. He affirmed, consequently, that Paschal II could not be submitted to the judgment of men, whatever the gravity of his weaknesses. Yet, Saint Ivo explicitly recognised 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 a heretic, would lose his office. Here are his words:
“(…) we do not want to deprive the principal keys of the Church (that is, the Pope) of their power, whatever the person placed on the See of Peter, except if he manifestly deviates from the evangelical truth.”
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 of Saint Hugh of Grenoble, but on the contrary, it corroborates it.
4.2.c. From Gratian to our days
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 not be judged by anyone, except if he deviates from the faith.”
In the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Dublanchy furnishes some expressive data on the influence of this canon in the fixing of medieval thought with regard to the question of a heretical Pope:
“One finds in the Decretum of Gratian this assertion 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 only concerned themselves with investigating why and under what conditions he could, in this case, be judged by the Church.”
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 might commit in matters of faith.”
One understands then to what extent V. Mondello was right to write:
“Many in the Middle Ages admitted that a heretical Pope could be judged 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.”
To show that Tradition furnishes weighty reasons against the first opinion enumerated by Saint Robert Bellarmin – according to which a Pope could not become a heretic – we esteem that it is not necessary here to extend our investigation to the later 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 now.
- The response of the defenders of this opinion
By what reasons do the partisans of this first opinion serve themselves to oppose such testimonies of Tradition, and so many others that could be invoked?
Certain of these authors, like Saint Robert Bellarmin and Suarez, recognise that such documents weaken the thesis of the impossibility of a heretical Pope.
However, there are those who attempt to contest the value of these documents. This is the case, for example, of Cardinal Billot. He maintains that the allocution of Adrian II proves nothing, insofar as Pope Honorius was in reality not a heretic; 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 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 alone, constitutes a weighty argument in the evaluation of Tradition. It is what Saint Robert Bellarmin highlights 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.”
- A merely probable opinion
As we have already observed in brief notes, 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. That 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 conformed to the gentle Providence of God to never permit to him to whom it is never permitted to teach error to 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 since 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 the faith, but (… etc.)”
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 certitude. Such a qualification shows that he implicitly recognises that the adverse opinions retain a true theological probability and that they cannot be set aside as contrary to the faith.
And Saint Robert Bellarmin 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 defended easily, as we shall show later in its place. Since, however, it is not certain, and since THE COMMON OPINION IS THE OPPOSITE, it is useful to examine what solution should be given to this question, in the hypothesis where the Pope could be a heretic.”
This remark of Saint Robert Bellarmin possesses a great theological importance. Indeed, when he affirms that “the common opinion is the opposite”, he notes a doctrinal fact of his epoch: the majority of Catholic theologians admitted as at least possible the hypothesis of a Pope falling into heresy. From then on, the first opinion, even defended by first-order authors like Pighius, Suarez or Billot, could not be presented as a certain doctrine of the Church. It remains a probable theological opinion, but not defined, since it is expressly recognised as contradicted by the common opinion of the doctors.
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 a heretic’. For this opinion, supported by Saint Robert Bellarmin and Suarez, it was also praised at the First Vatican Council by the bishop Zinelli, spokesman 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 things necessary; consequently, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy it will not fail’ (Conc. Vatic., Mansi 52, 1109).”
In short, the principal defenders of this first opinion themselves recognise that it is not demonstrated in an apodictic manner. Bellarmin 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 certitude, 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 are not discussing here the possibility that the Pope be in material heresy. No one denies that, by error or by inadvertence, the Sovereign Pontiff can fall into a material heresy, as a private person. As for 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 “Infaillibilité du Pape”, in Dict. de Théol. Cath., col. 1715.
[3] See pp. 147-148, 154-155.
[4] See pp. 147, 155.
[5] Text that we quote hereafter.
[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 passage of Scripture to which allusion is made refers to Saint Peter and to 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 quoted Gospel 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) by citing Palmieri, Van Laak, Straub, Dublanchy.
[9] For the reasons exposed further on (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 Bellarmin or by Cardinal Billot demonstrates the thesis that they support as the most probable. There nevertheless remains in this argument an undeniably true foundation: Providence could not permit that the adherence 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 very example of the mule of Balaam given by Saint Robert Bellarmin 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 either conclusive. 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 assertion of Matthaeuccius is found in his work Controversiarum VII, Cap. I, n° 7.
[12] On this point, Suárez refers to Saint Robert Bellarmin, 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 “Infaillibilité du Pape”, 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 authorise one to conclude that the Council had anathematised Honorius as a heretic. But this 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] H. Baeumer, article “Honorius Ier” 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 assertion 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 pass a true “judgment” on a Pope. But in the context, the term signifies, 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 Bellarmin 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 a 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 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 Lyon (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. Later theology clarified better 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 spirit (we have developed this theme in the article “Les actes, gestes, attitudes et omissions peuvent révéler un hérétique”, 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 gathered 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 spirit in a non-equivocal manner. A simple pusillanimity, for example, even prolonged, does not constitute a heresy. That must have been, as the 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 particular importance because its authority is today put in doubt. It is nevertheless undeniable that this decree receives a not 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 towards the year 1140.
[40] Dublanchy, article “Infaillibilité du Pape”, 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 a heretic would be deprived of his office. It is the chapter Oves (C. 13, c. 2, q. 7), attributed to Pope Saint Eusebius (this canon would be of the 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 Bellarmin, 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. – In what follows, Suarez defends his opinion (see pages 161 ff.).
[48] Saint Robert Bellarmin, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30, p. 418. The capitals are ours.
[49] Salaverri, De Eccl. Christi, p. 718.