Heretical Popes

[qfnol31]

I personally don't believe (after much discussion and reading) that any of the Popes were heretics. Now what I need is really a refutation of these, or a better way to defend this idea.

I know, from Apotheoun, that Vatican I had the pious opinion that the Popes couldn't even be private heretics.

This is pretty much in a conversation I've had with a friend, who mentioned specifically John XXII as one of them.

Anyways, any help would be greatly appreciated!

[Guest JeffCR07]

phatcatholic has some wonderful information on some of the most-brought up arguments. you can find them in the Catholic Apologetics "References" section, under [u]Peter and the Papacy[/u] and then [u]Papal Controversies[/u].


- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Laudate_Dominum]

I don't think you can really refute the broad assertion of herertical popes in general. But there are many books and online articles which are most helpful in discussing particular cases which anti-Catholics like to bring up.

The Ref. Section is deep.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=17829"]Just In Case DairyGirl comes back to ask the same questions[/url]

i dealt with a couple there

but the Ref. Section prolly has a ton more good stuff

[Laudate_Dominum]

teehee, thanks Al! I wonder what dairygirl is up to these days.. hopefully she's staying away from the anti-Catholic sites.

[popestpiusx]

That a Pope can hold heretical opinions privately is simply historical fact. That a Pope propose those beliefs as the teaching ofthe Cjurch is a whole different matter. There are many theories o how the charism of infallibility works. It's quite the interesting discussion for anyone who likes that sort of thing.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 25 2004, 08:35 PM']That a Pope can hold heretical opinions privately is simply historical fact.  That a Pope propose those beliefs as the teaching ofthe Cjurch is a whole different matter.  There are many theories o how the charism of infallibility works.  It's quite the interesting discussion for anyone who likes that sort of thing.[/quote]
That is your opinion, but it is not the pious and probable opinion of the vast majority of the reverend Fathers of the First Vatican Council, for their opinion was expressed quite eloquently in the Official Relatio on the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus delivered by Bishop Gasser. In the Official Relatio (which is the official interpretation of the dogmatic decree) Bishop Gasser said the following:

"Now before I end this general relatio, I should respond to the most grave objection which has been made from this podium, viz. that we wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith. Indeed this is a very grave objection, and, when I heard it from the mouth of an outstanding and most esteemed speaker, I hung my head sadly and pondered well before speaking. Good God, have you so confused our minds and our tongues that we are misrepresented as promoting the elevation of the extreme opinion of a certain school to the dignity of dogma, and is Bellarmine brought forth as the author of the fourth proposition of the Declaration of the French Clergy? For, if I may begin from the last point, what is the difference between the assertion which the reverend speaker attributes to Bellarmine, viz., 'The Pontiff is not able to define anything infallibly without the other bishops and without the cooperation of the Church,' and that well-known 4th article which says: 'in questions of faith the judgment of the supreme Pontiff is not irreformable unless the consent of the Church accrues to it'? In reality there is hardly to be found any difference unless someone wants to call the disagreement of the bishops the cooperation of the Church so that a dogmatic definition would be infallible, even though the bishops dissent, but as long as they had been consulted beforehand. These things are said about the opinion of Bellarmine. As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls [b][i]pious and probable[/i][/b], was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance [b][i]but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy[/i][/b]. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: '[b][i]It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith[/i][/b].' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion." [Vatican 1, [u]Official Reltio of Bishop Vincent Gasser[/u], delivered before the reverend Fathers of the First Vatican Council on 11 July 1870]

What Bishop Gasser is saying is that the idea that the Pope cannot err even as a private theologian is [i]pious and probable[/i], but that the present dogmatic decree is not focused on that [i]pious and probable[/i] belief, but is instead centered on the teaching authority of the Pope as a public person. Nevertheless, Gasser, and the assembled Fathers, accepted the idea, as [i]pious and probable[/i], that the Pope could not even err as a private theologian, except through a form of ignorance, nor could he fall into heresy as a private person.

God bless,
Todd

[MorphRC]

^^

[Guest JeffCR07]

amen to that Todd!