THE LIMITATIONS OF PAPAL AUTHORITY TO CHANGE SACRED TRADITION
From the Writings of Roman Catholic Popes, Councils, Saints, and Theologians
TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Network
Copyright 1994-2007 CSM. Reproduction prohibited without authorization.
Last Revised: 08/06/07
ST. AUGUSTINE (354-430)
GREAT WESTERN DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"By teaching that superiors should not refuse to be reprehended by
inferiors, St. Peter gave posterity an example more rare and holier than that
of St. Paul as he taught that in the defense of truth and with charity,
inferiors may have the audacity to resist superiors without fear." (Epistula
19 ad Hieronymum)
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (CA. 400-CA. 450)
CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to
separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other
choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted
member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion
were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of
the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to
attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced
by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)
POPE ST. GREGORY I, "THE GREAT" (590-604)
The Canon remained unchanged from Apostolic times to the present
day, with the exception of one short clause inserted by St. Gregory the
Great.
The phrase Pope Gregory added was "diesque nostros in tua pace
disponas" [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of
the Canon. The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill
the pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass was
affirmed to be complete and unchangeable. Since that time no pope has
dared to change the Ordo of the Traditional Latin Mass, until in 1962
Pope John XXIII added "beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi" [of
blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin] to the Communicantes of the
Canon.
POPE ST. AGATHO (678-681)
Papal Coronation Oath, to be taken by all Roman pontiffs, showing that no
Roman pontiff has the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith, or to
change or innovate upon what has been handed by to him by Sacred Tradition
and his predecessors:
"I vow 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;
"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful
student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my
whole strength and utmost effort;
"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order,
should such appear;
"To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were
the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place
I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support,
being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all
that I shall confess;
"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will
keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and
whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and
declared.
"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline
and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever
dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or
should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on
the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
"Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest
excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare
to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic
Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or
would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with
those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." (Liber Diurnus Romanorum
Pontificum, Patrologia Latina
1005, S. 54)
The Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, one of the oldest
collections of papal texts, privileges, and decrees, written down by
Pope St. Agatho with texts that contain centuries of tradition, includes
this Papal Coronation Oath, probably already a couple of centuries old,
by which every pope since then has sworn as a requirement of acceding to
the papal office until John Paul II failed to do so.
The oath makes it clear that a magisterium that contradicts former
magisterium is not magisterium, for the pope is sworn to put himself
outside the Church if even he contradicts what he has received from his
predecessors. The ancient papal oath, therefore, foresees the
possibility that even a pope may become a heretic or schismatic by
violating either dogma or the rites of the Church handed down by
Tradition.
SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA (787)
"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to
set aside ecclesiastical traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty,
or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who
wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those
traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed...."
POPE INNOCENT III (CA. 1160-1216)
"The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he
rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by
man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff
glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already
judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does
not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If
salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and
trampled under foot by men.'" (Sermo 4)
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P. (1225-1274)
THE "ANGELIC" DOCTOR AND PRINCIPAL THEOLOGIAN OF THE CHURCH
"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients.
Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be
questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a
subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent
danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St.
Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example
to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way,
they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from
their subjects....'
"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was
not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth....
The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest.
For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter,
'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was
fraught with danger to everyone. (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A.
4)
"Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the
prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven,
or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their
subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the
prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected.
And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against
them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own
sake.... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of
fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be
corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)
ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)
DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"Most Holy Father,... because He [Christ] has given you authority and
because you have accepted it, you ought to use your virtue and power. If you
do not wish to use it, it might be better for you to resign what you have
accepted; it would give more honor to God and health to your soul.... If you
do not do this, you will be censured by God. If I were you, I would fear
that Divine Judgment might descend on me. (Letter to Pope Gregory XI)
"Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal
damnation. (Letter to Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)
JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468)
(UNCLE OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR)
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE
GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"
"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope
can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are
not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that
he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts
of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,
were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the
articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of
the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such
commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia
[1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council
of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ
despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity
of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope
can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ,
or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law.
by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church
because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In
this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....
"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal
Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or
if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world
by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See.
Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for
example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal
customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects
of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one
unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated
places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross
as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way,
relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
"By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the
observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope
could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are
not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been
established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope]
Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a
Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the
universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal
customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
ST. ANTONINUS, O.P. (1389-1459)
BISHOP AND THEOLOGIAN
"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would
find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence,
separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long
as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off.
"A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy,
therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the
Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is
outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church."
(Summa Theologica)
GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA (1452-1498)
DOMINICAN PREACHER (CAUSE FOR CANONIZATION PENDING)
The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for
some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear
witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and
cannot be.... This I declare in the first place and affirm it with all
certitude, that the man is not a Christian; he does not even believe
any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of
infidelity and impiety." (Letter to the Emperor)
SYLVESTRO MAZZOLINI (PRIERIAS), O.P. (1460-1523)
THEOLOGIAN
"What should be done when the pope, because of his bad customs,
destroys the Church...? What if the pope wanted, without reason, to
abrogate positive law...? He would certainly sin; he should neither be
permitted to act in such a fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was
evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. (De
Iuridica et Irrefragabili Veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique
Pontificis, secs. 4 and 15)
GIACOMO TOMMASO DE VIO GAETANI [CAJETAN], O.P. (1469-1534)
THEOLOGIAN AND CARDINAL
Cardinal Cajetan points out that the famous axiom "Ubi Petrus, ibi
Ecclesia" [Where the Pope is, there is also the Church] holds true only
when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to
the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor
is he in the Church." (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa
IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)
This statement accords with that of St. Ignatius of Antioch (ob. ca.
107), one of the Apostolic Fathers: "Where Christ is, there is the Church"
(Epistula ad Smyrnaeos, 8).
One must resist to his face a Pope who publicly destroys the Church.
(De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio, cap. XXVII apud Victoria)
FRANCISCO DE VICTORIA, O.P. (1480?-1546)
THEOLOGIAN
"Consequently, if he [the pope] wished to give away the whole
treasure of the Church or the Patrimony of St. Peter to his relatives,
if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be
permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist
him. The reason for this is that he does not possess power in order to
destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is
lawful to resist him. The result of all this is that if the pope
destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the
execution of his mandates prevented.
"Second proof of the thesis. By Natural Law it is lawful to repel
violence with violence. Now then, with such orders and idspensations the
pope exerts violence, since he acts against the Law, as we have proven.
Therefore, it is lawful to resist him." (Dialogus de Potestate Papae [1517],
para. 4)
POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)
"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond
question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this
when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman
pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)."
(Quaest. in IV Sententiam).
"After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern
Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which
legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the
rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII,
act. VII)
(For further information about Pope Honorius, see below.)
ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)
CARDINAL AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required....
Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man's
person,
so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls or troubled the state
(turbanti rempublicam) and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It
is
lawful, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands, and hindering the
execution of his will." (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to
be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases automatically to be a
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and
punished by the Church. All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching
that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." (De Romano
Pontifice, II.30)
According to St. Robert Bellarmine, papal infallibility is a
charism of divine assistance accorded by God to the Pope because of his
possessing the magisterium, or the office of primacy. Bellarmine
concludes that in the event that an individual Pontiff should
delinquently lose the papacy, he would necessarily lose not only the
papal office but also the divine charism of infallibility.
In short, the divine assistance is attached not to the person of
the Pope per se, but to the office that is filled by this person.
Therefore, an individual Pontiff enjoys this assistance of the Holy
Spirit as long as he also enjoys the possession of the magisterial
office. Should this office be forfeited, his prerogative of
infallibility would also lapse. Thus, Bellarmine foresaw the
possibility of an individual Pontiff lapsing into manifest heresy.
The First Vatican Council incorporated Bellarmine's own formula in
qualifying papal infallibility. In his treatise De Romano Pontifice,
Bellarmine limits infallibility to those pronouncements made by the
Sovereign Pontiff "cum ex cathedra loquitur." Thus, the charism of
infallibility is a free gift given the Pontiff not for his personal
sanctification, but to assure the welfare of others by means of his
preserving and explaining the Deposit of Faith.
The First Vatican Council amended the original title of its draft
from De Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate (Concerning the Infallibility
of the Roman Pontiff) to De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio
(Concerning the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff). By
stressing the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, this latter
title clarified not only the source and purpose of the divine charism of
infallibility, but its resultant loss should an individual Pope
regretfully lapse from the magisterial office. In this respect, the
Constitution merely defined what in fact had already become the common
opinion, as most capably explained by Bellarmine.
NINETEENTH (DOGMATIC) OECUMENICAL COUNCIL, TRENT (1545-1563)
"Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos ecclesiae catholicae
ritus in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut
contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novus
alio per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit." -
-Session VII, Canon 13
[If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the
Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the
Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and
at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor (a term that includes
the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him
be anathema.]
FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)
CALLED BY POPE PAUL V DOCTOR EXIMIUS ET PIUS (MOST EXALTED AND PIOUS)
CONSIDERED THE GREATEST THEOLOGIAN OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS
"Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet
tenere cum toto Ecclesiae corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet,
ut si tentat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellet omnes
Ecclesiasticas caeremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere. (De
Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1)
["And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were
unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church,
as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as
both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites
of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition."]
"If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should
not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to
justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he
attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation
appropriate to a just defense." (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
POPE PAUL IV (1559-1566)
"If ever it should appear that any bishop, even one acting as an
Archbishop, Patriarch, or Primate, or a Cardinal of the Roman Church,
or a legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, whether prior to his promotion to
cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff, has beforehand deviated
from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, we decree, we
determine, we define: Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with
the agreement and unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, shall be null,
legally invalid, and void.
"It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be
deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office,
consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, not even through the
putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the
veneration and obedience accorded him by all. Such promotion or election
shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation be considered
even partially legitimate in any way.... Each and all of the words, as acts,
laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected -- and indeed, whatsoever
flows therefrom -- shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability
and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
"Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need
to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position,
honor, title, authority, office, and power.... Therefore, it is permitted to
no one to impair this page of Our approval, renewal, sanction, statute, wills
of repeal, of degrees, or to go contrary to it by a rash daring deed. If
anyone, moreover, will have presumed to attempt this, he will incur the wrath
of Almighty God an of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (Cum ex
apostolatus officio, February 16, 1559, sec. 9, apud "Fontes Iuris Canonici,"
1971)
Two popes, Innocent III and Paul IV, both vigorous defenders of
papal authority, together with many theologians, admitted the principle
that a pope, in his personal capacity, can defect from the Faith or
become a heretic; that when the fact of defection becomes manifest, such
a pope automatically (ipso facto) loses his office and authority; and
that such a pope should be resisted.
What is even more significant is that in his Cum ex apostolatus
officio, Paul IV even perceives the possibility of a Protestant being
elected to the throne of Peter. He says that in such a case, the pope's
acts would be automatically void, and he would not be the pope, even if
he had been accepted and obeyed as true Pope by the whole Church. This
papal document shows the mind of the Church on this matter. In such a
case, Paul IV is calling upon Catholics to resist such a "pope" with all
their might.
ST. FRANCIS DE SALES (1567-1622)
"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto
from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either
deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic
See." (A Catholic Controversy, 1596)
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, C.S.S.R. (1696-1787)
BISHOP AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
"If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he
would at once fall from the pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a
pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact
cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant." (Verita della
Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII.9-10)
JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN (1801-1890)
"It is not a little remarkable that, though historically speaking
the fourth century is the age of the doctors, illustrated as it is, by
the Saints Athanasius, Hilary, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom,
Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine (and all those saints bishops also,
except one, nevertheless in that very day the divine tradition committed
to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the
faithful than by the episcopate....
"I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine
dogma of Our Lord's divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and
(humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the Ecclesia docta ("the
taught Church" -- the faithful) than by the Ecclesia docens ("the
teaching Church" -- the Magisterium); that the body of the Episcopate
was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was
faithful to its baptism....
"On the one hand, then, I say that there was a temporary
suspension of the functions of the Ecclesia docens. The body of bishops
failed in their confession of the faith. There was weakness, fear of
consequences, misguidance, delusion ... extending itself into nearly
every corner of the Catholic Church. (The Arians of the Fourth Century,
1833)
"...Though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a
Pope's Apostolic Letters, etc., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of
his infallibility if they are said only obiter -- by the way, and without
direct intention to define. A striking instance of this sine qua non
condition is afforded by Nicholas I [858-867], who, in a letter to the
Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered simply in the
Lord's Name, without direct mention of the Three Persons, but he is not
teaching and speaking ex cathedra, because no question on this matter was in
any sense the occasion of his writing. The question, asked of him was
concerning the minister of baptism, -- viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could
validly baptize; in answering in the affirmative, he added obiter, as a
private doctor, says Bellarmine, "that the baptism was valid, whether
administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only"
(De Romano Pontifice, Lib. IV, Cap. 12). (Infallibility and Conscience)
DOM PROSPER LOUIS PASCAL GUERANGER (1805-1875)
THEOLOGIAN
"When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it behooves the flock to defend
itself in the first place. Doctrine normally flows from the bishops down to
the faithful people, and subjects should not judge their chiefs. But, in the
treasure of revelation, there are certain points that every Christian
necessarily knows and must obligatorily defend." (L'anne liturgique - Le
temps de la septuagesime, 1932)
FR. HENRY IGNATIUS DUDLEY RYDER (1837-1907)
THEOLOGIAN AND SUPERIOR OF THE BIRMINGHAM ORATORY
SUCCESSOR AND STUDENT OF JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN
"It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for
heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by
heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst
theologians that I know of, except that some, with Turrecremata and
Bellarmine, hold tha by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst
others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not
formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was
formally deposed.
"The privilege of infallible teaching belongs only to an undoubted
Pope; and on the claims of a doubtful, disputed Pope the Church has the
right of judging. No single example can be produced of a Pope whose
orthodoxy and succession ws undoubted upon whom the Church pretended to
sit in judgment.... During a contested Papacy the state of things
approximates to that of an interregnum. The exercise of active
infallability is suspended." (Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns &
Oates, pp. 30-31)
FRANCIS XAVIER WERNZ, S.J. (1842-1914)
SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE JESUITS
& RECTOR OF THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY AT ROME
AND FRANCOIS D'ASISE VIDAL Y BARRAQUER (1868-1943)
CARDINAL
Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey
the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of
widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of
Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of
the Church. (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian University, 1937],
Vol. VII, p.398
VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878)
"I am only the pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?" In
response to requests that he add the name of St. Joseph to the
Canon of the Mass.
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith,
do not follow him." Letter to Bishop Brizen
"The opinion according to which the pope, in virtue of his
infallibility, is an unlimited and absolute Sovereign, supposes a totally
erroneous conception of the dogma of papal infallibility. Thus, as the
[First Vatican Council] declared in clear and explicit terms, and as the
nature of things itself shows, this infallibility is confined to that which
is proper to the supreme pontifical Magisterium, which in truth coincides
with the limits of the infallible Magisterium of the Church generally, which
is limited by the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as by
the definitions already pronounced by the Magisterium of the Church. ("A
Collective Declaration of the German Bishops," confirmed by Pope Pius IX)
TWENTIETH OECUMENICAL (DOGMATIC) COUNCIL, VATICAN I (1869-1870)
"Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut
eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam
per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et
fideliter exponerent. (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi
[Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, "De Romani Pontificis Infallibili
Magisterio")
[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.]
"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done
with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has
never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for
heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or
even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment,
obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church
knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being
deposed by God Himself.
"If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is
false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny
the rest of the creed, 'I believe in Christ,' etc. The supposition is
injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you
the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample
thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the
Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you
or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to
nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy."
[Address at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of
Cincinnati, Ohio, on the infallibility of the Pope as defined at the
Council.]
In drafting the definition of the Dogma of Infallibility in 1869, the
periti of Vatican Council I actually discovered that more than forty popes
had preached personal doctrinal errors in preceding centuries, though not in
an infallible context.
The Council Fathers, having re-affirmed what the Church had always
taught that it was necessary for salvation to be in union with the Bishop of
Rome and that he who rejected his authority could not hope to be saved, went
on to reason that therefore the Pope could not err or lead his flock astray,
for in that case the faithful might, on certain occasions, find themselves in
the position of having to follow him into his error. As no one is ever bound
to an evil act, this would be an absurdity.
At this point the Council had to define also the limits of
infallibility, and lay down the precise conditions that must be satisfied for
a pronouncement to be ex cathedra. Clearly the Council was aware that
obedience to the Pope -- only relatively infallible -- could not under all
circumstances be identified with obedience to God, Who alone is the Source of
all Truth and Holiness. Not only was the Infallibility of the Pope defined
at the Vatican Council, but also the limits and extent of this Infallibility.
To put it another way, the Council laid down also the fact that outside these
limits the Pope remained capable of erring and was not entitled to command
blind obedience.
FR. ADRIAN FORTESCUE (1874-1923)
BRITAIN'S GREAT LITURGICAL HISTORIAN
(1874-1923)
"The Pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in
questions of politics.... His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes
no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters,
the Pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the
Church. There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion.
He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation
Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack
and false interpretation. We believe that God will guide him that his
decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of
what Christ revealed.
"The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament; he cannot affect
the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can
neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them.
He has no fresh inspiration nor revelation.
"His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics
believe it, and to defend it against heresy.... The Pope is not, in the
absolute sense, head of the Church; the head of the Church is Jesus Christ
our Lord.... The Pope is the vicar of that head, and therefore visible head
of the Church on earth, having authority delegate from Christ over the Church
on earth only.... If the Pope is a monarch, he is a very constitutional
monarch indeed, bound on all sides by the constitution of the Church, as this
has been given to her by Christ." (The Early Papacy to the Synod of
Chalcedon in 451, pp. 27-28)
POPE LEO XIII (1878-1903)
Pope Leo XIII, who had named St. Joseph as the Patron of the
Universal Church and had written an encyclical letter about him, refused
permission for the addition of the saint's name to the Canon of the
Mass, citing the tradition of the Church that the Canon was to remain
unchanged.
POPE ST. PIUS X (1903-1914)
"One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office
committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock is that of guarding with the
greatest vigilance the Deposit of Faith delivered to the Saints,
rejecting the profane novelties of words, and the gainsaying of
knowledged falsely so-called.... We may no longer keep silent
[against the Modernists], lest we should seem to fail in our essential
duty." (Encyclical Letter "Pascendi Dominici Gregis," September 8,
1907, Sec. 1)
These words of the great anti-Modernist pope-saint, one of the
only two popes canonized in the last 700 years, indicate that it is
possible for a pope to fail in his essential duty of safeguarding
the purity of the Faith.
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1907)
"It has been a common teaching of theologians that a validly
elected pope can fall into heresy and so vacate the See of Peter by
automatic tacit resignation." (Vol. VII, p. 261)
"Were a Pope to become a public heretic, where he clearly opposed what has
been defined as de fide Catholicism, many theologians hold that no formal
sentence of disposition would be required, as by becoming a public
heretic the Pope would ipso facto cease to be pope."
POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958)
"The sacred pastors are not the inventors and composers of the
Gospel, but merely the authorized guardians and preachers divinely
established. Wherefore, we ourselves, and all bishops with us, can and
must repat the words of Jesus Christ: "My teaching is not my own, but
his who sent me" (John 7:16)....
"Therefore, we are not teachers of a doctrine born of the human
mind, but we are in conscience bound to embrace and follow the doctrine
which Christ Our Lord taught and which He solemnly commanded His
Apostles and their successors to teach (Matthew 28:19-20)." (Encyclical
Letter "Ad Sinarum Gentem," October 7, 1954)
This great pope of our century speaks of the limitations of his
office, acknowledging that even the pope has no power to innovate upon
the Faith, but only to pass down the Apostolic teaching.
UDALRICUS BESTE
THEOLOGIAN
"Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the
pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which
is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious
heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power,
and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [the
Apostolic See] is judged by no one.... The reason is that, by falling into
heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the church. He who is not a member
of a society, obviously, cannot be its head. (Introductio in Codicem, 1946,
Canon 221)
=====================================================================
POPES WHO ARGUABLY FELL INTO MATERIAL (PERSONAL) HERESY
POPE ST. MARCELLINUS (296-304)
Marcellinus, during the persecutions of the Emperor Diocletian in
303-304, offered incense to the idols of the pagan gods. Therefore, he
apostatized, left the Catholic Faith, and left the Church. Catholic theology
teaches that it is possible for this to happen with a pope as with any other
man, as a pope is a man and has freewill to accept or reject the Catholic Faith.
The Catholic faithful were so scandalized by the pope's apostasy that
they accosted him and reproached him severely. Under pressure from the Catholic
faith, Marcellinus publicly recanted his error and deposed himself. He declared
himself unworthy of Christian burial and excommunicated all who might presume to
bury him. His body lay above ground for 35 days decomposing.
POPE LIBERIUS (352-355)
By his own admission (Letter "Studens Paci"), Liberius signed an
heretical semi-Arian profession of faith at Sirmium in 357, during the period
of the Arian heresy in the Church. He also excommunicated St. Athanasius,
who was courageously defending the orthodox Catholic faith.
Liberius also signed, in December 359, when he was under pressure at
the hands of the Emperor, who was holding him prisoner at Byzantium, a semi-
Arian formula that had already been accepted by all the (heretic) Eastern
bishops, 160 in number, meeting at Seleucia, and by 400 (heretic) Western
bishops, at Rimini -- by all of them except St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, and a
tiny handful of others, whom Liberius went so far as to condemn and
excommunicate.
These facts are attested to by St. Athanasius (History of the Arians,
sec. 41; Apologia against the Arians, sec. 89), St. Hilary of Potiers
(Historical Fragments, Ad Constantium), and St. Jerome (Chronicle), who
wrote: "Liberius, conquered by the tedium of exile, WITH HERETICAL
PERVERSITY, signed [the profession of semi-Arian faith] and entered into Rome
as a conqueror."
Neither St. Athanasius nor St. Hilary had any problem resisting the
heretical politics of Pope Liberius.
POPE ZOSIMUS (417-418)
Pope Zosimus, in the presence of the Roman clergy, recognized as
orthodox the heretical statements of Pelagius, which had been condemned by
Pope Innocent I and the two Councils of Carthage.
Pelagianism, which denied the doctrine of Original Sin and man's need
for grace, was a virulent heresy of the time, against which St. Augustine
wrote numerous tracts (The Remission of Sins and the Baptism of Children, The
Spirit and the Letter, Letter to Hilary, Nature and Grace, Perfect Justice,
The Acts of Pelagius, The Grace of Christ, and Original Sin).
The pope condemned those who held the orthodox Catholic faith as
calumniators (Letter "Postquam nobis," November 21, 417; Letter "Magnum
pondus") and demanded a formal retraction from the orthodox African bishops,
St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Aurelius of Carthage.
In response, St. Augustine and St. Aurelian took a solemn oath with
God as witness (obtestatio), affirming that the prior Catholic doctrine
prevailed over the judgment of the pope, which was upheld by a plenary
council of all Africa assembled. Confronted with resistance to his part in
perpetuating heresy, Pope Zosimus finally recanted and renewed the
excommunication of the heretic Pelagius.
It was around this time that St. Augustine uttered the famous words
(or something close to them): Roma locuta est; causa finita est, in a Sermon
CXXXI of September 417. Pope Zosimus was waffling on his precedessor's, Pope
St. Innocent I's, anathema against the heretic Pelagius. St. Augustine meant
by his statement since Rome had already spoken on the matter (a reference to
Pope St. Innocent I's anathema against Pelagius), the case ought not to
be reopened, even by Pope Zosimus, who ought to give his assent to the
solemn judgment of his predecessor.
St. Augustine made his statement, then, at a time when a pope was in
the process of lending aid and comfort to heretics, when he should have been
holding fast to what his predecessor had decreed. The great Saint was not
saying that every decision of Rome must be blindly obeyed; otherwise, he
would have supported the reigning pope. He was warning people, the Pope
included, that Rome had already spoken on this matter and that it would be
gravely wrong for anyone (even, presumably, a pope) to attempt to reverse a
solid and sound judgment on a matter of Catholic doctrine.
POPE ANASTASIUS (496-498)
This pope appears held in Hell in Dante Alighieri's Inferno (Canto XI,
lines 8-9):
...Anastasio papa guardo,
lo qual trasse Fotin dela via dritta.
[...I hold Pope Anastasius,
whom Photinus drew from the straight path.]
In mediaeval tradition, this pope was held to have been persuaded by
Photinus, a deacon of Thessalonica, to deny the divine birth of Christ.
Although later scholarship has cast doubt on the correctness of this
tradition, the point is that it was a widely held opinion of the Church that
a pope was a heretic, so widely held, in fact, that this pope appears as a
heretic in one of the most read and influential texts of the Middle Ages,
written by a Franciscan Tertiary and praised by several subsequent popes as
showing consonance with the Apostolic Tradition.
POPE VIGILIUS (537-555)
Vigilius became to all appearances a supporter of heresy when, in
553, he refused to uphold firmly the Church's teaching that Christ had two
Wills, against "Monothelism." He did not condemn either this or the older
Monophysite heresy. The Roman deacon Pelagius attacked Vigilius on this
account and charged him with heresy, for which he was excommunicated by
Vigilius. It was Pelagius, however, who succeeded him as pope, only to fall
into similar habits of temporizing and diplomatic duplicity as his
predecessor!
The Emperor Justianian had called a kangaroo council to rescind the
condemnation of the heresy of monophysitism, a heresy that denied the two
natures, human and divine, of Christ. Pope Vigilius, who wished to return to
Rome from exile, in a decree, or Iudicatum, recanted his former orthodox
Catholic position, condemned the orthodox decree of the Council of Chalcedon
(451), and excommunicated the bishop-authors of that decree (the so-called
Three Chapters of Theodoret).
As a result of this action, he was excommunicated for heresy by
an African Council and forced to annul the Iudicatum, although he
continued to support it privately in correspondence with the emperor.
The Fifth Oecumenical Council at Constantinople (553) excommunicated Pope
Vigilius, and the next year he recanted again, saying that he had been
deceived by the devil.
Having thus succumbed to public and personal heresy, Pope Virgilus
died before he reached Rome. His heresy had a great repercussion on the
Church of the time. In the West, it even caused a schism in northern Italy.
POPE BONIFACE IV (608-615)
Pope Boniface manifested strong tendencies toward the Nestorian
heresy, which denied the correct doctrine of the two natures of Christ and
denied that the Blessed Virgin Mary was the Mother of God. This heresy was
condemned by the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) and persists
in parts of the East to this day.
St. Columbanus wrote to the pope vehemently reprimanding him for his
heretical tendencies (Epistula V), called upon the pope to prove his
orthodoxy and to call a council to clarify the doctrinal confusions that the
pope had created.
POPE HONORIUS I (625-638)
Honorius is, among all the popes in any way guilty of heresy, both
the best known and the most culpable. The phrase he used when justifying his
compromise with the heretics has a surprisingly up-to-date ring about it, for
all that it was spoken in 634: "We must be careful not to rekindle ancient
quarrels." On the strength of this argument, he allowed error to spread
freely, with the result that truth and orthodoxy were effectively banished.
Pope Honorius wrote a letter approving the heresy of the Patriarch Sergius of
Constantinople, monothelitism, which held against the doctrine of the human
and divine natures of Christ that there was only a single will in Christ.
This heresy was strongly opposed by St. Sophronius, later Patriarch
of Jerusalem, St. Maximus the Confessor, and various popes. St. Sophronius
called a council to combat the heresy, at which the constant teaching of the
Church on the two natures, human and divine, in Christ was demonstrated.
Pope Honorius in reply reproved the orthodox Catholic patriarch and enlisted
the help of the heretical emperor Heralitus.
The heresy of monothelitism, to which Pope Honorius personally held,
was condemned by Pope Severinus (640-640), Pope John IV (640-642) in 642,
Pope Theodore I (642-649), who excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople
for defending the error, Pope St. Martin I 9649-655), who died a martyr for
defending the orthodox Catholic doctrine, and Pope Eugenius I (654-657).
Finally, the Third Oecumenical Council of Constantinople (680-681)
condemned the heresy of monothelitism and condemned and excommunicated Pope
Honorius (after his death) as a heretic, as did Pope St. Leo II, who followed
the Council, in these words:
"Having found that [Honorius's letters] are in complete disagreement
with the Apostolic dogmata and the definitions of the Holy Councils,
and of all the approved Fathers; and that, on the contrary, they
lead to the false doctrines of the heretics, we absolutely reject and
condemn them as being poisonous to souls.
"We also state that Honorius, formerly pope of the elder Rome, had
been also rejected from God's Holy Catholic Church and is being
anathematized, on account of the writings that he sent to Sergius,
where he adopted his ideas in everything, and reaffirmed his impious
principles. He is shown to be incapable of enlightening this Apostolic
Church by the doctrine of Apostolic Tradition, in that he allowed its
immaculate faith to be blemished by a sacrilegious betrayal."
All the great Oecumenical Councils since then have endorsed this
verdict. Even while proclaiming the dogma of Papal Infallibility, the Church
upheld the anathema cast many centuries ago upon one of her Pontiffs on account
of heresy.
Moreover, Pope Honorius admonished the bishops of Spain to be
benevolent toward the errors of the Jewish religion, which had been condemned
by the Council of Toledo (633), presided over by St. Isidore of Seville. St.
Braulio of Saragossa publicly reproved the pope, charging that he could not
believe that "the astuteness of the serpent had been able to leave traces of
his passing over the stone of the Apostolic See."
THE CHURCH WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT POPE HONORIUS WAS CONDEMNED AND
EXCOMMUNICATED BY THE CHURCH AS A HERETIC, WHO WROTE HERESY IN HIS OFFICIAL
PAPAL LETTERS.
#1. Honorius was condemned by the Third Oecumenical Council of Constantinople
specifically as a heretic who had taught heresy, not just because he was just
negligent and failed to teach the true Faith when it was in danger of
subversion. The Council's findings were as follows:
We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite
foreign to the Apostolic dogmata, to the declarations of the Holy
Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the
false teachings of the heretics. We expel and anathematize from the
Holy Church of God Honorius, who was some time pope of Old Rome, because
of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he
followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.... To Honorius,
the heretic, anathema!... [The devil] has actively employed them
[including Honorius]... We slew them [including Honorius] with
anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning
outside the camp of the tabernacle of God.
#2. Pope Leo confirmed the documents of this Council with a sentence that
actually confirms that Honorius
Moreover, [we anathematize] also Honorius, who ruled this Apostolic
Church, not by the doctrine of Apostolic Tradition; rather, he tried
by profane treason to overthrow the immaculate Faith of the Roman
Church.
[Necnon et Honorium (anathematizamus), qui hanc Apostolicam ecclesiam,
non Apostolicæ Traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione
immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est.” (Mansi, Tomus XI. p. 731]
#3. The Council of Trullo was held just a few years after Constantinople III.
It stated that Honorius had been condemned specifically because he taught
heresy:
This council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the
incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills,
or volitions, and two natural operations; and condemned by a just
sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people
that in the one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one
operation: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of
Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter.
The Oecumenical Council II Nicea also recorded that Honorius held the heresy
along with the other heretics:
We have also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and
Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus,
and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematized their own evil will.
POPE STEPHEN VI (VII) (896-897)
Stephen had the body of Pope Formosus (891-896), his second-to-last
predecessor, although not charged with heresy, exhumed, vested in
papal vestments, seated on a throne, formally placed on trial before the Roman
Synod (sometimes called the Cadaver Synod) for having invalidly usurped the
papal throne. When he was found guilty, Formosus was then stripped of his papal
vestments, and the three fingers of his right hand -- the fingers with which he
conferred blessings -- were cut off and cast away contemptuously. Formosus'
body was then thrown into the Tiber. Stephen deposed the dead pope, annulled
all his decrees, and pronounced all the ordinations conferred by him invalid.
Although several of Stephen's successors rehabilitated Formosus, Pope Sergius
III (904-911) upheld the Stephen's actions. Boniface VI (896), Stephen's
immediate predecessor, was an excommunicated priest. Formosus had himself been
excommunicated in 872.
POPE BENEDICT IX (1032-1044; 1045; 1047-8)
In 1049 Pope Benedict IX was excommunicated not for heresy, but for
simony by a Lateran synod. He reportedly renounced the papal throne in
exchange for the income of the annual St. Peter's Pence collection.
POPE PASCHAL II (1099-1118)
In 1111 Pope Paschal II succumbed to the secular power and demanded
that all bishops and abbots resign so that the secular power could make its
own appointments (lay investiture). To a man, including St. Bruno of Segni,
the bishops and abbots refused to obey the pope.
Paschal was declared suspect of heresy. In 1112 Guido of Burgundy,
Archbishop of Vienne and the future Pope Callistus II, with St. Hugh of
Grenoble and St. Godfrey of Amiens, also acted against the pope at a
provincial synod.
In 1116, like St. Peter, the pope in public repented bitterly of the
error that he had made in undermining the authority of the Church and acting
against the common good of the Church.
POPE JOHN XXII (1316-1334)
In three sermons from 1331 until 1333 preached and wrote against
the common opinion of theologians, preaching instead that the souls of the
just do not enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after death, nor are the
wicked at once eternally damned, but that all await the final judgment of God
at the Last Day. The pope was denounced as a heretic and demanded to be
brought before a council for trial and condemnation. Yet he persisted in
teaching this error, even throwing into the papal dungeon one who accused him
of heresy. Eventually, however, the pope appointed a commission of
theologians to examine the question, which easily showed him that his
teaching was contrary to the almost universal opinion of theologians. On the
day before his death, December 3, 1334, he issued the Bull Ne Super His in
the presence of the College of Cardinals, formally and solemnly revoking his
opinion. On January 29, 1936, his successor, Pope Benedict XII, published
this document, along with his own Constitution, Benedictus Deus, which
declared authoritatively and perpetually concerning the matter.
John XXII, upon his deathbed, solemnly recanted every opinion, every
teaching contrary to the Catholic Faith, alluding to his heretical sermon
given on the Feast of All Saints in 1331, "determinationi Ecclesiae ac
successorum nostrorum" [submitting all that he may have said or written on
the subject to the judgement of the Church and of his successors]. Such
instances do not leave any room for doubt but that it is possible for a Pope
to be guilty of heresy, except in the exercise of the Extraordinary
Magisterium, which, alone, is intrinsically infallible.
"Papal teaching authority was not thought of as being independent of
the other teaching authorities in the Church. Scholastic theologians like
St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that the Pope could introduce new formulas of
faith, but Thomas thought of this in the context of papal councils like the
Lateran councils, and saw papal authority to determine the faith as being
exercised as the head of such a council, not in opposition to it or
independence from it. It became Dominican tradition that individual popes
could not could not error when acting with the counsel of the Church. This
Dominican teaching would be reiterated to good effect in the debates at the
First Vatican Council.
"A crucial influence in the development of the idea that the Pope
himself might be free from error came from the Franciscan debates about
poverty. Successive popes had ruled in favour of the Franciscan rejection of
property. When Pope John XXII repudiated that teaching and denied that
Christ was a pauper, Franciscan theologians appealed against his judgement to
the infallibility of other, earlier popes. They argued that the Church, in
the person of those popes, had repeatedly accepted the Franciscan view of
poverty as an evangelical form of life. John XXII, therefore, was in error
in rejecting this infallible teaching -- and since true popes do not err,
this proved that he was no longer a true pope. Papal infaillibility was here
being invoked not to EXALT the Pope's authority, but to limit it, by ensuring
that a pope did not arbitrarily reverse earlier Christian teaching. --Eamon
Duffy, "Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (Yale University Press, c.
1997, p. 131
ANTIPOPES
Anacletus II (1130-1138)
Anacletus succeeded by simony in obtaining in advance the majority
of the cardinals' support in the next papal election. Immediately after
the death of Pope Honorius II (1124-1130), the uncompromised cardinals,
a minority of about one-third, met in secret conclave before notifying
the other cardinals and elected Pope Innocent II (1130-1143).
The majority of cardinals rejected the validity of what had been
done by the minority and met in conclave later the same day to elect
Anacletus. Anacletus was proclaimed pope and recognized by the
hierarchies of the world. He continued to reign at Rome for eight years
until his death, recognized by the Roman clergy to the end.
It was through the influence of St. Bernard (who at the time held
no public office in the Church, but was only an abbot of a very new
monastic order) that Pope Innocent II was recognized. St. Bernard
recognized the canonical defects of the election, chiefly clandestinity
and the small number of cardinals involved, but he did not hesitate to
rely on moral arguments and to leave it to the canonists to find a way
to justify the claim (epikeia).
Thus, St. Bernard did not hesitate to reject the validity of a pope
who was elected by the majority of cardinals, occupied the See of Rome, and
was recognized by the whole world. In addition, St. Bernard, with the zeal
of the Prophet Elias, opposed unworthy bishops and made many enemies on this
account.
After Anacletus's death and a short-lived attempt by the same
majority cardinals to elect another (anti)pope, Innocent II finally took
possession of Rome. The Second General Council of the Lateran, called
in 1139, nullified all Anacletus's official acts and deposed the
prelates whom he had appointed.
Clement VII (1378-1394)
In 1376 Gregory XI (1370-1378) was the last of the popes who
established their see at Avignon, France. After having been vehemently
upbraided by St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), he re-established his
see in Rome. Upon his death in 1378, the cardinals duly elected an
Italian, Urban VI (1378-1389). Dissatisfaction on the part of the
French members of the Sacred College of Cardinals and disagreement
concerning the validity of the choice led to a second conclave and the
election of another pope, a Frenchman, as Clement VII, who immediately
took up his see in Avignon. As both Urban VI and Clement VII claimed to
be legitimate popes, the Western Church divided into two camps, each
supporting one or the other, in what is known as the "Great Western
Schism."
"There was really no schism, for the majority of the people
desired unity under one head and intended no revolt against papal
authority. Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is
the true pope? Even saints and theologians were divided on the
question.... Unfortunately, led by politics and human desires, the
papal claimants launched excommunications against each other." --The
New Catholic Dictionary (1929)
Even saints disagreed on who the true pope was. St. Vincent
Ferrer, together with most of the people of both France and Spain,
supported what was later proven to be an antipope. All of the cardinals of the
Church and most of the theologians recognized an anti-Pope, who ruled from Rome.
The "schism" was not ended until 39 years later, when the General
Council of Constance (1414-1418) elected an undisputed pope, Martin V
(1417-1431). However, after Benedict XIII defied the Council of Constance
and failed to resign his claim as pope, he and a few of his followers
proclaimed that they alone held the true succession from St. Peter. They
have held court in the Basque country up to this day. Because of this, the
Great Western Schism has not fully come to an end.
