Note: We urge everyone to reprint, post and share this important Op-Ed -- published first here at Rorate Caeli -- far and wide. And we urge you to keep reading beyond the "Read more" link as His Excellency lays out a plausible case for future binding canonical norms to address a "heretical or a manifestly heterodox pope":
By Bishop Athanasius Schneider
Special to Rorate Caeli
March 20, 2019
On the question of a heretical pope
The issue of how to handle a
heretical pope, in concrete terms, has not yet been treated in a manner which approaches
anything like a true general consent in the entire Catholic tradition. So
far, neither a pope nor an Ecumenical Council has made relevant doctrinal
pronouncements nor have they issued binding canonical norms regarding the
eventuality of how to handle a heretical pope during the term of his office.
There is no historical case of a
pope losing the papacy during his term of office due to heresy or alleged
heresy. Pope Honorius I (625 - 638) was posthumously excommunicated by three
Ecumenical Councils (the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, the Second Council
of Nicaea in 787, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870) on the
grounds that he supported the heretical doctrine of those who promoted
Monotheletism, thereby helping to spread this heresy. In the letter with which
Pope Saint Leo II (+ 682 - 683)
confirmed the decrees of the Third Council of Constantinople, he declared the
anathema on Pope Honorius (“anathematizamus
Honorium”), stating that his predecessor “Honorius, instead of purifying
this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a
profane treason.” (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563)
The Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, a miscellaneous collection
of formularies used in the papal chancery until the eleventh century, contains the text for
the papal oath, according to which every new pope, upon taking office, had to swear
that he “recognized the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal
anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc.,
together with Honorius." (PL 105, 40-44)
In some Breviaries until the 16th
or the 18th centuries, Pope Honorius was mentioned as a heretic in
the lessons of Matins for June 28th, the feast of Saint Leo II: “In synodo Constantinopolitano condemnati
sunt Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paulus et Petrus, nec non et Macarius,
cum discipulo suo Stephano, sed et Polychronius et Simon, qui unam voluntatem
et operationem in Domnino Jesu Christo dixerunt vel praedicaverunt.” The
persistence of this Breviary reading through many centuries shows that it was
not considered scandalous by many generations of Catholics, that a particular pope,
and in a very rare case, was found guilty of heresy or of supporting heresy. In
those times, the faithful and the hierarchy of the Church could clearly
distinguish between the indestructibility of the Catholic Faith divinely
guaranteed to the Magisterium of the See of Peter and the infidelity and
treason of a concrete pope in the exercise of his teaching office.
Dom John Chapman explained in his
book “The Condemnation of Pope Honorius” (London 1907), that the same Third Ecumenical
Council of Constantinople that declared anathema on Pope Honorius made a clear
distinction between the error of a particular pope and the inerrancy in faith
of the Apostolic See as such. In the letter asking Pope Agatho (678 – 681) to approve the conciliar decisions, the
Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople say that Rome has an
indefectible faith, which is authoritatively promulgated to the whole Church by
the bishops of the Apostolic See, the successors of Peter. One can ask: How was
it possible for the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople to assert this
and yet in the same breath to condemn a pope as a heretic? The answer is clear enough.
Pope Honorius I was fallible, he was wrong, he was a heretic, precisely because
he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine
tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal, but had
merely approved and enlarged an erroneous doctrine. But once disowned by his
successors, the words of Pope Honorius I were harmless against the fact of the
inerrancy in Faith of the Apostolic See. They were reduced to their true value,
as the expression of his own personal view.
Pope
Saint Agatho did not let himself be confused and shaken by the lamentable behavior
of his predecessor Honorius I, who helped to spread heresy. In spite of this, Pope
Agatho kept his supernatural view of the inerrancy of the See of Peter in
teaching the Faith, as he wrote to the Emperors in Constantinople: “This is the
rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil
empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ (the See of Rome), has both in
prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it
will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of
the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical
innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from
her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto
the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Savior himself, which
he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying,
"Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift
you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And when
thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Ep. “Consideranti mihi” ad
Imperatores)
Dom Prosper Guéranger gave a short and lucid theological
and spiritual explanation of this concrete case of a heretical pope, saying: “What
exultation rang through the abyss, when one sad day saw [Pope Honorius] the
representative of Him who is essential Light appear to side for a moment with
the powers of darkness in bringing on a cloud which would interpose itself
betwixt Heaven and those mountains of God, where He dwells with His Vicar; it
is but too probable that the social aid of intercession was weaker just then
than it should have been.” (The Liturgical Year, London 1900, vol. 12, p. 377)
There is, furthermore, the
weighty fact that during two thousand years there was never a case that a pope
during the term of his office was declared deposed because of the crime of
heresy. Pope Honorius I was declared anathema only after his death. The last
case of a heretical or semi-heretical pope was the case of Pope John XXII (1316
- 1334) when he taught his theory that the Saints would enjoy the beatific
vision only after the Last Judgment in the Second Coming of Christ. The treatment
of that particular case in those times was as follows: there were public
admonitions (University of Paris, King Philip VI of France), a refutation of
the wrong Papal theories made through theological publications, and a fraternal
correction on behalf of Cardinal Jacques Fournier, who eventually became his
successor as Pope Benedict XII (1334
- 1342).
The Church in the very rare
concrete cases of a pope committing serious theological errors or heresies
could definitely live with such a pope. The practice of the Church until now
was that she left the final judgment about a reigning heretical pope to his successors
or to a future Ecumenical Council, such as in the case of Pope Honorius I. The
same would probably have happened with Pope John XXII, if he had not retracted
his error.
Popes were deposed several times
by secular powers or by criminal clans. This occurred especially during the
so-called dark ages (10th and 11th centuries), when the German Emperors deposed
several unworthy popes, not because of their heresy, but because of their
scandalous immoral life and their abuse of power. However, they were never
deposed according to a canonical procedure, since that is impossible because of
the Divine structure of the Church. The pope gets his authority directly from
God and not from the Church; therefore, the Church cannot depose him, for any
reason whatsoever.
It is a dogma of faith that the pope
cannot proclaim a heresy when teaching ex
cathedra. This is the Divine guarantee that the gates of hell will not
prevail against the cathedra veritatis, which
is the Apostolic See of the Apostle Saint Peter. Dom John Chapman, an expert in
investigating the history of the condemnation of Pope Honorius I, writes: “Infallibility
is, as it were, the apex of a pyramid. The more solemn the utterances of the
Apostolic See, the more we can be certain of their truth. When they reach the
maximum of solemnity, that is, when they are strictly ex cathedra, the possibility of error is wholly eliminated. The
authority of a pope, even on those occasions when he is not actually
infallible, is to be implicitly followed and reverenced. That it should be on
the wrong side is a contingency shown by faith and history to be possible” (The Condemnation of Pope Honorius,
London 1907, p. 109)
If a pope spreads doctrinal
errors or heresies, the Divine structure of the Church already provides an
antidote: in such a case there are stepping into the breach the substituting ministry of the
representatives of the episcopacy and the invincible sensus fidei of the faithful. In this issue the numerical factor is
not decisive. It is sufficient to have even a couple of bishops proclaiming the
integrity of Faith and correcting thereby the errors of a heretical pope. It is
sufficient that bishops instruct and protect their flock from the errors of a
heretical pope and their priests and the parents of Catholic families will do
the same. Furthermore, since the Church is also a supernatural reality and a
mystery, a unique supernatural organism, the Mystical Body of Christ, bishops,
priests, and lay faithful – besides corrections, appeals, professions of faith,
and public resistance - necessarily also have to do acts of reparation to the
Divine Majesty and acts of expiation for the heretical acts of a pope. According
to the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen
gentium (cf. n. 12) of the Second Vatican Council, the entire body of the
faithful cannot err in matters of belief, when from the Bishops down to the
last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and
morals. Even if a pope is spreading theological errors and heresies, the Faith
of the Church as a whole will remain intact because of the promise of Christ concerning
the special assistance and permanent presence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of
the truth, in His Church (cf. John 14: 17; 1 John 2: 27).
When by an inscrutable permission
of God, at a certain moment of History and in a very rare instance, a pope
spreads errors and heresies through his daily or ordinary non-infallible
Magisterium, Divine Providence awakens at the same time the witness of some
members of the episcopal college, and also of the faithful, in order to
compensate the temporal failures of the Papal Magisterium. One has to say that
such a situation is very rare, but not impossible, as Church History has
proven. The Church is indeed one single organic body, and when there is a
failure and lack in the head of the body (the pope), the rest of the body (the faithful)
or eminent parts of the body (the bishops) supplement the temporary Papal
failures. One of the most famous and tragic examples of such a situation
occurred during the Arian crisis in the fourth century, when the purity of
faith was maintained not so much by the ecclesia
docens (pope and episcopate) but by the ecclesia
docta (faithful), as Blessed John Henry Newman has stated.
The theory or opinion (the loss
of papal office by deposition or declaration of the ipso facto loss) implicitly makes the pope identical with the
entire Church or manifests the unhealthy attitude of a pope-centrism, of papolatria ultimately. The
representatives of such an opinion (especially some Saints) were those who
manifested an exaggerated ultramontanism or pope-centrism, making the pope a
kind of half-god, who cannot commit any errors, not even in the realm outside
the object of Papal infallibility. Thus, a pope committing doctrinal errors,
which theoretically and logically includes also the possibility of committing
the gravest doctrinal error, i.e., a heresy, is for the followers of that opinion
(deposition of a pope and loss of his office because of heresy) unbearable or
unthinkable, even if the pope commits such errors in the realm outside the
object of Papal infallibility.
The theory or theological opinion
that a heretical pope can be deposed or lose office was alien to the first
millennium. It originated only in the High Middle Ages, in a time when
pope-centrism arrived at a certain high point, when unconsciously the pope was
identified with the Church as such. This was already in its root the mundane
attitude of an absolutist prince according to the motto: “L’État, c’est moi!”
or in ecclesiastical terms: “I am the Church!”
The opinion, which says that a
heretical pope ipso facto loses his
office, became a common opinion starting with the High Middle Ages until the
twentieth century. It remains a theological opinion and not a teaching of the
Church and therefore it cannot claim the quality of a constant and perennial
teaching of the Church as such, since no Ecumenical Council and no pope has
supported such an opinion explicitly. The Church, however, condemned a
heretical pope, but only posthumously and not during the term of his office. Even
if some saint Doctors of the Church (e.g. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de
Sales) held such an opinion, it does not prove its certainty or the fact of a
general doctrinal consensus. Even Doctors of the Church have been known to err;
such is the case with Saint Thomas Aquinas regarding the question of the
Immaculate Conception, the matter of the sacrament of Orders, or the
sacramental character of the episcopal ordination.
There was a period in the Church
where there was, for instance, an objectively wrong common theological opinion that
asserted that the handing over of the instruments was the matter of the sacrament
of Orders, an opinion, however, which could not invoke antiquity and
universality, even though such an opinion was for a limited time supported by a
pope (by the decree of Eugene IV) or by liturgical books (though for a limited
period). This common opinion was, however, later corrected by Pius XII in 1947.
The theory - deposing a heretical
pope or the loss of his office ipso facto
because of heresy – is only a theological opinion, that does not fulfil the
necessary theological categories of antiquity, universality, and consensus (semper, ubique, ab omnibus). There have
been no pronouncements of the universal ordinary Magisterium or of the Papal
Magisterium, that would support the theories of the deposition of a heretical pope
or of the loss of his office ipso facto
because of heresy. According to a Medieval canonical tradition, which was later
collected in the Corpus Iuris Canonici
(the Canon law valid in the Latin Church until 1918), a pope could be judged in
the case of heresy: “Papa a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur
a fide devius”, i.e. “the pope
cannot be judged by anyone, unless he has been found deviating from the faith.” (Decretum Gratiani, Prima Pars, dist.
40, c. 6, 3. pars) The Code of Canon Law of 1917,
however, eliminated the norm of the Corpus
Iuris Canonici, which spoke of a heretical pope. Neither does the Code of
Canon Law of 1983 contain such a norm.
The Church has always taught that
even a heretical person, who is automatically excommunicated because of formal
heresy, can nevertheless validly administer the sacraments and that a heretic or
formally excommunicated priest can in an extreme case exercise even an act of
jurisdiction by imparting to a penitent sacramental absolution. The norms of
the Papal election, which were valid until Paul VI inclusively, admitted that
even an excommunicated cardinal could participate in the Papal election and he
himself could be elected pope: “No cardinal elector may be excluded from active
and passive participation in the election of the Supreme Pontiff because of or
on pretext of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other
ecclesiastical impediment. Any such censures are to be regarded as suspended as
far as the effect of the election is concerned.” (Paul VI, Apostolic
Constitution Romano Pontifice eligendo,
n. 35). This theological principle must be applied also to the case of a
heretical bishop or a heretical pope, who in spite of their heresies can
validly perform acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and therefore do not lose ipso facto their office because of
heresy.
The theory or theological opinion
allowing the deposition of a heretical pope or the loss of his office ipso facto because of heresy is in
practice unworkable. If it were applied in practice, it would create a situation
similar to that of the Great Schism, which the Church already experienced
disastrously at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th centuries. Indeed,
there will be always a part of the Cardinals’ college and a considerable part
of the world’s episcopate and also of the faithful who will not agree in
classifying a concrete Papal error (errors) as formal heresy (heresies) and consequently
they will therefore continue to consider the current pope as the only
legitimate pope.
A formal schism, with two or more
pretenders to the Papal throne – which will be an inevitable consequence of even
a canonically enacted deposition of a pope - will necessarily cause more damage
to the Church as a whole than a relatively short and very rare period in which
a pope spreads doctrinal errors or heresies. The situation of a heretical pope
will always be relatively short in comparison with the two thousand years of
the existence of the Church. One has to leave an intervention, in this rare and
delicate case, to Divine Providence.
The attempt to depose a heretical
pope at any cost is a sign of all too human behavior, which ultimately reflects
an unwillingness to bear the temporal cross of a heretical pope. It maybe also reflects
the all too human emotion of anger. It will, in any case, offer a far too human
solution, and as such is somewhat similar to behavior in politics. The Church
and the Papacy are realities which are not purely human, but also Divine. The
cross of a heretical pope – even when it is of limited duration - is the
greatest imaginable cross for the entire Church.
Another error in the intention or
in the attempt to depose a heretical pope consists in the indirect or
subconscious identification of the Church with the pope or in making the pope
the focal point of the daily life of the Church. This means ultimately and
subconsciously a yielding to unhealthy ultramontanism, pope-centrism, and papolatry,
i.e. a papal personality cult. There were indeed periods in the history of the
Church when for a considerable period of time the See of Peter was vacant. For
instance, from Nov. 29, 1268, to Sept. 1, 1271, there was no pope and in that
time neither was there any anti-pope. Therefore, Catholics should not make the pope
and his words and actions their daily focal point.
One can disinherit children of a
family. Yet one cannot disinherit the father of a family, however guilty or
monstrously he behaves himself. This is the law of the hierarchy which God has established
even in creation. The same is applicable to the pope, who during the term of his
office is the spiritual father of the entire family of Christ on earth. In the case
of a criminal or monstrous father, the children have to withdraw themselves
from him or avoid contact with him. However, they cannot say, “We will elect a
new and good father of our family.” It would be against common sense and against
nature. The same principle should be applicable therefore to the question of
deposing a heretical pope. The pope cannot be deposed by anybody, only God can intervene
and He will do this in His time, since God does not fail in His Providence (“Deus in sua dispositione non fallitur”).
During the First Vatican Council, Bishop Zinelli, Relator of the conciliar
commission on Faith, spoke in these terms about the possibility of a heretical pope:
“If God permits so great an evil (i.e. a heretical pope), the means to remedy
such a situation will not be lacking” (Mansi 52, 1109).
The deposition of a heretical pope
will ultimately foster the heresy of conciliarism, sedevacantism, and a mental
attitude similar to that which is characteristic in a purely human or political
community. It will also foster a mentality similar to the separatism in the
Protestant world or to autocephalism in the commonwealth of the Orthodox
churches.
The theory or opinion allowing
deposition and loss of office is revealed furthermore to be in its deepest
roots – though unconsciously – also a kind of “Donatism” applied to the papal
ministry. The Donatist theory identified the sacred ministers (priests and
bishops) almost with the moral holiness of Christ Himself, demanding therefore
for the validity of their office the absence of moral errors or misconduct in
their public life. The mentioned theory in a similar way excludes the
possibility of a pope making doctrinal errors, i.e., heresies, declaring by
that same fact his office invalid or vacant, as the Donatists did, declaring
the priestly or episcopal office invalid or vacant because of errors in the
moral life.
One can imagine that in the future
the Supreme authority of the Church (Pope or Ecumenical Council) could
stipulate the following or similar binding canonical norms for the case of a
heretical or a manifestly heterodox pope:
* A pope cannot
be deposed in whatsoever form and for whatever reason, not even for the reason
of heresy.
* Every newly
elected pope on entering upon his office is obliged in virtue of his ministry
as the supreme teacher of the Church to take the oath of protecting the entire
flock of Christ from the dangers of heresies and to avoid in his words and
deeds any appearance of heresy in compliance with his duty of strengthening in
faith all the Shepherds and the faithful.
* A pope who is
spreading obvious theological errors or heresies or helping in the spread of
heresies by his actions and omissions should be obligatorily corrected in a
fraternal and private form by the Dean of the College of Cardinals.
* After
unsuccessful private corrections, the Dean of the College of Cardinals is
obliged to make his correction public.
* Together with
the public correction, the Dean of the College of Cardinals must make an appeal
for prayer for the pope that he may regain the strength to confirm
unambiguously the entire Church in the Faith.
* At the same
time the Dean of the College of Cardinals should publish a formula of a
Profession of Faith, in which there would be rejected the theological errors that
the pope teaches or tolerates (without necessarily naming the pope).
* If the Dean
of the College of Cardinals should omit or fail to make the correction, the
appeal to prayer, and the publication of a Profession of Faith, any cardinal, bishop
or a group of bishops should do this and, if even the cardinals and bishops
omit or fail to do this, any member of the Catholic faithful or any group of
Catholic faithful should do this.
* The Dean of
the College of Cardinals or a cardinal, or a bishop or a group of bishops, or a
faithful Catholic or a group of Catholic faithful who made the correction,
appeal to prayer, and the publication of the Profession of Faith cannot be
subjected to any canonical sanctions or penalties or accused of disrespect
towards the pope for this reason.
In the extremely rare case of a
heretical pope, the spiritual situation of the Church can be described with the
words that Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590 - 604) used, calling the Church in
his time “an old ship woefully shattered; for the waters are entering on all
sides, and the joints, buffeted by the daily stress of the storm, are growing
rotten and herald shipwreck" (Registrum I,
4, Ep. ad Ioannem episcopum Constantinopolitanum)
The episodes narrated in the
Gospel about Our Lord calming the stormy sea and rescuing Peter, who was
sinking in the water, teach us that even in the most dramatic and humanly desperate
situation of a heretical pope, all the Shepherds of the Church and the faithful
should believe and trust that God in His Providence will intervene and Christ
will calm the raging storm and restore to the successors of Peter,
His Vicars on earth, the strength to confirm all the Shepherds and faithful in
the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Pope Saint Agatho (678 - 681),
who had the difficult task of limiting the damage that Pope Honorius I caused to
the integrity of the Faith, left vivid words of an ardent appeal to each
successor of Peter, who must be always mindful of his grave duty to guard
unspoiled the virginal purity of the Deposit of Faith: “Woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they
have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which
I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people
and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ
himself, if I blush - which God forbid! - to preach here the truth of his
words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls
committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have
received?” (Ep. “Consideranti mihi” ad Imperatores)
When the first pope, Saint Peter,
was materially in chains, the whole Church implored his liberation: “Peter was
kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for
him” (Acts 12: 5). When a pope is spreading errors or even heresies, he is in
spiritual chains or in a spiritual prison. Therefore, the entire Church has to
pray without ceasing for his liberation from this spiritual prison. The entire
Church must have a supernatural perseverance in such a prayer and a
supernatural trust in the fact that it is God who governs His Church ultimately
and not the pope.
When Pope Honorius I (625 - 638) adopted
an ambiguous attitude towards the spreading of the new heresy of Monothelitism,
Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, sent a bishop from Palestine to Rome,
saying to him the following words: "Go to the Apostolic See, where are the
foundations of holy doctrine, and do not cease to pray till the Apostolic See
condemn the new heresy.”
In dealing with the tragic case
of a heretical pope, all the members of the Church, beginning with the bishops,
down to the simple faithful, have to use all legitimate means, such as private
and public corrections of the erring pope, constant and ardent prayers and
public professions of the truth in order that the Apostolic See may again
profess with clarity the Divine truths, that the Lord entrusted to Peter and to
all his successors. “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but
that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound
the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (First Vatican
Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor
aeternus, cap. 4)
Each pope and all members of the Church must be reminded of
the wise and timeless words, that the Ecumenical Council of Constance (1414 -
1418) pronounced about the pope as the first person in the Church who is bound
by the Faith and who must scrupulously guard the integrity of the Faith: “Since the
Roman Pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be
bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by the rites
that are to be observed regarding the church's sacraments. We therefore decree
and ordain, in order that the fullness of the faith may shine in a future Roman
pontiff with singular splendor from the earliest moments of his becoming pope,
that henceforth whoever is to be elected Roman pontiff shall make the following
confession and profession in public.” (Thirty-ninth session from October 9,
1417, ratified by Pope Martin V)
In the same session, the Council of Constance
decreed that every
newly elected pope had to make an oath of faith, proposing the following
formula, from which we quote the most crucial passages:
“I, N., elected pope, with both heart and mouth confess and
profess to almighty God, that I will firmly believe and hold the Catholic Faith
according to the traditions of the Apostles, of the General Councils and of
other Holy Fathers. I will preserve this faith unchanged to the last dot and
will confirm, defend and preach it to the point of death and the shedding of my
blood, and likewise I will follow and observe in every way the rite handed down
of the ecclesiastical sacraments of the Catholic Church.”
How timely is such a Papal oath and how urgent it is to put
such on oath into practice, especially in our days! The pope is not an absolute
monarch, who can do and say what he likes, who can change doctrine or liturgy at
his own discretion. Unfortunately, in the past centuries - contrary to the
Apostolic tradition in the ancient times – the behavior of the popes as
absolute monarchs or as half-gods became so commonly accepted to the extent
that it shaped the theological and spiritual views of the prevailing majority
of the bishops and the faithful, and especially among pious people. The fact
that the pope must be the first in the Church who has to avoid novelties, obeying
in an exemplary manner the tradition of the Faith and of the Liturgy, was sometimes
blotted out from the consciousness of the bishops and the
faithful by a blind and pious acceptance of a kind of Papal absolutism.
The Papal oath from the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum
considered as the main obligation and the most distinguished quality of a new pope
his unshakeable faithfulness to the Tradition as it was handed down to him by
all his predecessors: “Nihil de
traditione, quod a probatissimis praedecessoribus meis servatum reperi,
diminuere vel mutare, aut aliquam novitatem admittere; sed ferventer, ut vere
eorum discipulus et sequipeda, totis viribus meis conatibusque tradita
conservare ac venerari.” (“To change nothing of the received Tradition, and
nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors,
to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; with glowing
affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently
the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort.”)
The same Papal oath named, in
concrete terms, fidelity to the lex
credendi (the Rule of Faith) and to the lex
orandi (the Rule of Prayer). With regards to the lex credendi (the Rule of Faith), the text of the oath says:
“Verae fidei rectitudinem, quam Christo autore tradente, per successores
tuos atque discipulos, usque ad exiguitatem meam perlatam, in tua sancta
Ecclesia reperi, totis conatibus meis, usque ad animam et sanguinem custodire,
temporumque difficultates, cum tuo adjutorio, toleranter sufferre.” (“I
promise to keep with all my strength, even to the point of death and the
shedding of my blood, the integrity of the true faith, whose author is
Christ and which through your successors and disciples was handed over up to my
humble self, and which I found in your Church. I promise also to bear with
patience the difficulties of the time”.)
With regard to the lex orandi the Papal oath says:
“Disciplinam et ritum Ecclesiae, sicut inveni, et a sanctis praecessoribus
meis traditum reperi, illibatum custodire.” (“I promise to keep inviolate the
discipline and the liturgy of the Church as I have found them and as they were
transmitted by my holy predecessors.”)
In the last hundred years, there
were some examples of a kind of Papal absolutism concerning changes in the
liturgical tradition of the Church. When we consider the lex orandi, there were drastic changes made by Popes Pius X, Pius
XII, and Paul VI, and, regarding the lex credendi,
by Pope Francis.
Pius X became the first pope in the
history of the Latin Church who made such a radical reform of the order of the psalmody
(cursus psalmorum) that it resulted
in the construction of a new kind of Divine Office regarding the distribution
of the psalms. The next case was Pope Pius XII, who approved for
liturgical use a radically changed Latin version of the millennia-old and
melodious text of the Vulgate Psalter. The new Latin translation, the so-called
“Pian Psalter,” was a text artificially fabricated by academics and was, in its
artificiality, hardly pronounceable. This new Latin translation, aptly
criticized with the adage “accessit latinitas,
recessit pietas,” was then de
facto rejected by the entire Church under the pontificate of Pope John
XXIII. Pope Pius XII changed also the liturgy of Holy Week, a millennia-old
liturgical treasure of the Church, introducing partially ex novo invented rituals. Unprecedented liturgical changes, however,
were executed by Pope Paul VI with a revolutionary reform of the rite of the Mass
and of the rite of all other sacraments, a liturgical reform, which no pope
before dared to do in such a radicalness.
A theologically revolutionary change
was made by Pope Francis insofar as he approved the practice of some local
churches of admitting in singular cases sexually active adulterers (who are
cohabitating in so-called “irregular unions”) to Holy Communion. Even if these
local norms do not represent a general norm in the Church, they nevertheless
signify a denial in practice of the Divine truth of the absolute indissolubility
of a valid and consummated sacramental marriage. His other alteration in
doctrinal questions consists in the change of the Biblical and the constant
bi-millennial doctrine regarding the principle of the legitimacy of the death
penalty. The next doctrinal change represents the approval of Pope Francis of the
phrase in the Interreligious document of Abu Dhabi of February 4, 2019, which
states that the diversity of the sexes together with the diversity of races and
the diversity of religions corresponds to the wise will of God. This formulation
as such needs an official Papal correction, otherwise it evidently will
contradict the First Commandment of the Decalogue and the unmistakable and
explicit teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, hence contradicting Divine
Revelation.
Against this background remains the
impressive and thought-provoking episode narrated in the life of Pope Pius IX,
who upon the request of a group of bishops to make a slight change in the Canon
of the Mass (introducing the name of Saint Joseph), answered: “I cannot do
this. I am only the Pope!”
The following prayer of Dom
Prosper Guéranger, in
which he praises Pope Saint Leo II for his strenuous defense of the integrity
of Faith in the aftermath of the crisis caused by Pope Honorius I, each pope
and all the faithful should assiduously pray, especially in our time:
”Saint Leo, uphold, in every age, the Pastor who rules Christ's Church that he may keep himself aloof from the darkening mists that earth exhales; keep ever alive in the breast of the faithful flock that strong prayer, which should continually be made without ceasing for him by the Church (cf. Acts 12: 5): and then, Peter, were he even chained in the depths of the darkest dungeon, will be reached by the Sun of Justice and clearly see his way in that pure ray ; then, will the whole body of the Church be lightsome. For, Jesus hath said, the light of the body is the eye: if the eye be single the whole body will be lightsome. (Math. 6: 22) We realize more fully the strength of the Rock whereon the Church stands; we know that the gates of hell shall never prevail against her. (Math. 16: 18) For surely the efforts of the spirits of darkness never went to such lengths as they did in that sad crisis [of Pope Honorius] to which thou didst put an end: nor was their success, however great in appearance, contrary to the divine promise: for it is to the teaching of Peter, not to his [Pope Honorius'] silence [and his support of heresy], that the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost is guaranteed.” (The Liturgical Year, London 1900, Vol. 12, pp. 377 -378)
The extremely rare case of a
heretical or of a semi-heretical pope must ultimately be endured and suffered
in the light of the faith in the Divine character and in the indestructibility of
the Church and of the Petrine office. Pope Saint Leo the Great formulated this
truth, saying that the dignity of Saint Peter is not abated in his successors, however
unworthy they may be: “Cuius dignitas
etiam in indigno haerede non deficit” (Serm.
3, 4).
There could be a truly
extravagant situation of a pope who practices sexual abuse of minors or
subordinates in the Vatican. What should the Church do in such a situation?
Should the Church tolerate a Papal sexual predator of minors or subordinates?
For how long should the Church tolerate such a pope? Should he lose the papacy ipso facto because of sexual abuse of
minors or subordinates? In such a situation there could originate a new
canonical or theological theory or opinion of allowing the deposition of a pope
and the loss of his office because of monstrous moral crimes (e.g. sexual abuse of minors and subordinates).
Such an opinion would be a counterpart of the opinion allowing the deposition
of a pope and the loss of his office because of heresy. However, such a new
theory or opinion (deposition of a pope and the loss of his office because of sexual
crimes) would surely not correspond to the perennial mind and practice of the
Church.
The tolerance of a heretical pope
as a cross does not mean passivity or an approval of his wrong doing. One
should do all that is possible to remedy the situation of a heretical pope. To
bear the cross of a heretical pope does under no circumstances mean to consent
to his heresies or to be passive. Just as people have to bear, for instance, an
iniquitous or Atheist regime as a cross (how many Catholics lived under such a
regime in the Soviet Union and were bearing this situation as a cross in the
spirit of expiation), or as parents have to bear as a cross an adult child, who
became an unbeliever or immoral, or as members of a family have to bear as a
cross for instance an alcoholic father. The parents can not “depose” their
errant child from membership in their family, just as the children can not
“depose” their errant father from membership in their family or from the title
“father.”
The surer way of not deposing a
heretical pope represents a more supernatural view of the Church. Such a way
with its practical and concrete countermeasures and counteractions under no
circumstances means passivity or collaboration with the Papal errors, but a
very active commitment and a true compassion with the Church, which, in the
time of a heretical or semi-heretical pope, experiences her Golgotha hours. The
more a pope spreads doctrinal ambiguities, errors, or even heresies, the more luminously will shine the pure
Catholic Faith of the little ones in the Church: The Faith of innocent children,
of religious sisters, the Faith especially of the hidden gems of the Church,
the cloistered nuns, the Faith of heroic and virtuous lay faithful from
all social conditions, the
Faith of individual priests and bishops. This pure flame of Catholic Faith,
oftentimes nurtured by sacrifices and expiation acts, will burn more brightly
than the cowardice, the infidelity, the spiritual rigidity and blindness of a
heretical pope.
The Church is of such a Divine
character that it can exist and live for a limited period of time
notwithstanding a reigning heretical pope, exactly because of the truth that
the pope is not synonymous or identical with the Church. The Church is of such
a Divine character that even a heretical pope is not able to destroy the
Church, even though he heavily damages the life of the Church, yet his action
has only a limited duration. The Faith of the entire Church is greater and
stronger than the errors of a heretical pope and this Faith cannot be defeated,
not even by a heretical pope. The constancy of the entire Church is greater and
more durable than the relatively short-lived disaster of a heretical pope. The
true rock upon which resides the indestructibility of the Church’s Faith and
holiness is Christ Himself, the pope being only his instrument, just as every
priest or bishop is only an instrument of Christ the High Priest.
The Church’s doctrinal and moral
health does not depend exclusively on the pope, since by Divine law the
Church’s doctrinal and moral health is guaranteed in extraordinary situations
of a heretical pope by the fidelity of the teaching of the bishops and
ultimately also by the fidelity of the entirety of the lay faithful, as Blessed
John Henry Newman and History sufficiently demonstrated. The Church’s doctrinal
and moral health does not depend essentially to such an extent on the
relatively short-lived doctrinal errors of a single pope that it renders thereby the Papal See
vacant. As the Church can support a pope-less time, as already occurred in History
for a period even of several years, so the Church is by Divine constitution so
strong that she can also support a short-lived heretical pope.
The act of deposition of a pope
because of heresy or the declaration of the vacancy of the Papal chair because
of the loss of the papacy ipso facto
on behalf of a heretical pope would be a revolutionary novelty in the life of
the Church, and this regarding a highly important issue of the constitution and
the life of the Church. One has to follow in such a delicate matter – even if
it is of practical and not strictly of doctrinal nature – the surer way (via tutior) of the perennial sense of
the Church. Notwithstanding the fact that three successive Ecumenical Councils
(the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, the Second Council of Nicaea in
787, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870) and pope Saint Leo II in
682 excommunicated Pope Honorius I because of heresy, they did not even
implicitly declare that Honorius I had lost the papacy ipso facto because of heresy. In fact, the pontificate of Pope
Honorius I was considered valid even after he had supported heresy in his
letters to Patriarch Sergius in 634, since he reigned after that another four
years until 638.
The following principle,
formulated by pope Saint Stephen I (+ 257) although in a different context, should
be a guideline in treating the highly delicate and rare issue of a heretical
pope: “Nihil innovetur, nisi quod
traditum est,” i.e., “Let there be no innovation beyond what has been
handed down.”
+Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint
Mary in Astana
