Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. 

Below is the fifth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.  As context for this fifth article of this series against the error of sedevacantism, let us recall what we saw in the earlier four articles:

In the first article, we saw that we cannot know whether Pope Francis (or anyone else) is a formal heretic (rather than a material heretic only) – and thus whether he is outside the true Catholic Church – based simply on his persistent, public teaching of a heretical opinion.[1]

Then in the second article, we saw that we must not judge a man to be a formal heretic if he professes to be Catholic and says he believes what a Catholic must believe now, in order to be Catholic now.  When a person professes a heretical opinion, we must judge him in the most favorable light (if we judge him at all).  So, we must avoid rash judgment and we must not judge negatively the interior culpability of the pope and the 1.2 billion people who profess that they are Catholic.  We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics.[2]

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he is the pope.  Regarding any of the world’s 1.2 billion self-described Catholics who hold heresy, we must judge them (if we judge them at all) to be material heretics only, unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t qualify to be Catholics.[3]

In the third article, we examined briefly the important difference between persons in authority who fulfill their duty to judge those under their charge in the external forum, as compared to a sedevacantist or anyone else except God who judges the interior culpability of other persons and (rashly) judges them to be formal heretics.[4]

In the fourth article, we saw that it does not help us to protect ourselves better from Pope Francis’ heresy by declaring that he is not the pope.[5]

Below, in this fifth part of this series of articles against the error of sedevacantism, we examine whether it is possible for a pope to teach (or believe) heresy. 

Further Catholic Candle note explaining the origin of this part:

The following is a letter from a reader who was disturbed by a recent sedevacantist article (published elsewhere on the internet) that he read carefully.  This reader wrote Catholic Candle to express his concern and to send Catholic Candle a copy of the disturbing article.  He wrote seeking advice and help discerning the truth regarding that sedevacantist author’s claims.

It is Possible for a Pope to Teach Heresy and Remain the Pope?

The Following is an Extended Email From a Reader (almost two pages):

Dear Catholic Candle: Help, please. 

Recently, I read an article in which a sedevacantist author claimed that a pope “cannot teach error”.  Is that true? 

Note: for purposes of the rest of my email (below) to Catholic Candle, I will assume that this sedevacantist’s assertion means that the pope cannot teach heresy, as opposed to not being able to teach other errors about other matters, because I think the former is what the sedevacantist intended to say.

Let me add this:  This sedevacantist author gave many quotes from authorities which he claimed to state that no pope can ever teach error (heresy).  I have not checked the accuracy of any of those quotes.

First of all, I want to say that I view many of the sedevacantist’s quotes as not clearly supporting his position. 

1.    There were some quotes which did not seem to support this sedevacantist’s assertion at all, because they talked about the Church not failing in the Faith.

For example, he quoted a statement (which he attributed to Pope Saint Lucius I) saying that the Faith of the Roman Apostolic Church will not fail. 

I think that it is plainly true that the Roman Catholic Church will not fail and that the Church will always have the Faith – otherwise the Church and the Faith would cease upon the earth.  So, those quotes don’t support to his assertion that an individual pope could never teach heresy.

2.    Then there were other quotes that this sedevacantist gave which were much too vague to really support his assertion that no pope could ever teach heresy.

 

For example, this sedevacantist gave a quote (which he attributed to Pope Damasus I) which said that the See of Peter has no stain or blemish.  Plainly, however-much there might be no stain attributed to the See of Peter as such, no one can deny that throughout history, there have been many individual popes that have certainly stained themselves badly, in various ways.

Further, I note that the Pope Damasus quote (which is from the Fourth Century) is in the present tense.  In other words, he says that the See of Peter “has” no stain.  Perhaps this quote could be taken to mean that, in the Fourth Century, no pope had stained himself in the many ways in which we know from history that popes stained themselves in later centuries.

The “bottom line” is that such quotes do not seem to clearly say that no pope can teach heresy.

The sedevacantist author would probably say that when Pope St. Lucius I used the phrase the “Roman Church”, he meant particular individual popes and that when Pope St. Lucius I said that the Faith of the Church won’t fail, he meant that no individual pope could ever teach heresy.  To me, this seems like a doubtful interpretation.

But regardless of this, there are a few quotes which do seem to support the sedevacantist’s assertion that a pope cannot teach heresy. 

1.    He attributes a quote to Pope Innocent III saying that St. Peter’s successors “would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith.”

2.    The sedevacantist attributes a quote to St. Robert Bellarmine saying that “the Pope … cannot preach heresy.”

Again, help please: Is it true that no pope can ever preach heresy?

Catholic Candle’s Analysis and Response

For the purpose of this article, Catholic Candle will take the sedevacantist’s quotes – regardless of the number of them – according to the sedevacantist own interpretation of them, viz., as if they said that the pope cannot preach heresy.  This is the question we address below.

But the sedevacantist’s position is much too superficial and fails to even go deep enough into the topic to make his own position clear.  If we suppose that these quotes would say the pope cannot preach heresy, what does that mean?  Does that mean that the pope cannot be a material heretic or that he cannot be a formal heretic?

Because the sedevacantist does not go deep enough to make his position clear, let us be thorough and examine his assertion according to both interpretations of his assertion.

But this requires that we first examine the difference between material heresy and formal heresy.  To do this, let us use the guidance of the greatest Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas.[6]

The Distinction Between Material Heresy and Formal Heresy.

It is true that many people who profess to be Catholics, hold grave objective errors against the Catholic Faith.  This problem occurred in past centuries also, even if it is more common today than in (at least some) past centuries.  For example, a child might believe that the Holy Ghost has the body of a dove.  Or an adult might profess the Pelagian heresy (about grace and free will).

 

But we would not be forced to conclude that such a person (who professed himself Catholic) is not really Catholic.  For a person ceases to be Catholic when he holds a position against the Catholic Faith which he knows to be incompatible with what the Church teaches that he must believe in order to be Catholic.

 

If a man held the Pelagian heresy, but wrongly believed that he held the Catholic Faith (concerning matters of grace and free will), then that man would be a material heretic.  That is, the man would hold the “material” of heresy (i.e., a heretical opinion) not knowing it was heresy.  But this man would not be a formal heretic because he would not know that his position was against the teaching of the Catholic Church (and God).  A material heretic does not deny this authority (of the Church and God) but “only” denies that a particular statement belongs to the deposit of the Faith.

By contract, a formal heretic denies the formal aspect of Faith, which is the authority of the Church, which is the authority of God.  In other words, a formal heretic denies the authority of the Church (God) concerning one or more statements of the Faith.  He does not believe a statement of the Faith even though he knows that the Church (God) teach it.[7]

 

 

Definitions – In summary:

 

➢  A person is a formal heretic if he denies the Catholic Faith in its formal aspect, i.e., if he denies any statement which he knows is revealed by the infallible teaching authority of the Church (God).  Such denial involves rejecting the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority itself.

 

➢  A person is only a material heretic, if he denies a part of the Catholic Faith in its material aspect only.  In other words, a material heretic is a person who denies a statement of the Catholic Faith without knowing that the Church (God) teaches that this statement is infallibly true.  A denial of the material of the Faith only, does not involve rejection of the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority, because the person errs (only) about what the Church (God) teaches.

 

Thus, a material heretic can be a Catholic.  However, a formal heretic cannot be Catholic, because in order to be Catholic, one must submit to every single dogma of the Faith that one knows the Church teaches; and yet the formal heretic rejects the Church’s (God’s) authority by denying part of the Faith, knowing that the Church (God) teaches it.

 

 

So Now We Come to the Two Questions We Set Out to Examine

Having seen what it means to be a material heretic and what it means to be a formal heretic, these are the questions presented:

1.    Can a pope ever become a material heretic? 

and
 

2.    Can a pope ever become a formal heretic?

Let us first ask if a pope can become a material heretic and then after that, let us ask whether a pope can become a formal heretic.

1. Can the Pope become a Material Heretic?

It is a very superficial supposition to think that a pope cannot be a material heretic (that is, the supposition that a pope cannot hold, even internally, an opinion contradictory to the Catholic Faith).[8]  Further, it is superficial to think the pope cannot then teach his heretical opinion (e.g., through the pope teaching while he is ignorant).  These (false) suppositions are superficial because they fail to take into account the basic truths of the catechism that even children know.

A.  To Say that the Pope Cannot Make a Heretical Statement Means that He is Always Infallible When Making Any Statement about the Faith.

If the pope were unable to make heretical statements, then everything he said about religious matters would be infallible.  In other words, Catholics would be sure that everything he said on religious matters was protected from error and must be true.  In other words, under this supposition, the pope would always be infallible when making any statement about the Catholic Faith.

B.  It is Basic Catechism that the Pope Can Indeed Teach Heresy (Error) When He Does Not Invoke His Special Ex Cathedra Authority.

But it is basic catechism (which even children know) that the pope only teaches infallibly under certain carefully-enumerated conditions. 

For example, here is the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X showing when the pope is infallible, viz., on matters of Faith and morals only under certain conditions:

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?

A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.[9]

Notice the narrow conditions under which the pope is infallible.  All of these conditions must be fulfilled:  he must be teaching all Christians (not just a subset, such as his own diocese of Rome or a certain nation);  he must be using his full authority (not just partial authority); and he must be defining (not just commenting on or exploring) a doctrine regarding faith or morals (not Church discipline, Canon Law, or some other, lesser subject) to be held by all (not just some of) the Church.

The Baltimore Catechism teaches the same thing as does the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and elaborates further.  Firstly, The Baltimore Catechism equates the pope speaking infallibly with his speaking ex cathedra:

Q. 531. What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or

ex-cathedra?

A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra, (1) He must speak

on a subject of faith or morals; (2) He must speak as the Vicar of

Christ and to the whole Church; (3) He must indicate by certain words,

such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak

infallibly.[10]

 

Then The Baltimore Catechism emphasizes the same thing that every Catholic child is taught, viz., that the pope is not infallible on any other occasion when he speaks about Faith or morals:

 

Q. 532. Is the Pope infallible in everything he says and does?

A. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because

the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything,

but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church.  Nevertheless, the Pope’s opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity.[11]

The Baltimore Catechism summarizes these truths, teaching that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra:

Q. 533. Can the Pope commit sin?

A. The Pope can commit sin and he must seek forgiveness in the Sacrament

of Penance as others do.  Infallibility does not prevent him from

sinning, but from teaching falsehood when he speaks ex-cathedra.[12]

Similarly, The Catechism Explained teaches that “the Pope is infallible in his solemn decisions”.[13]  Those “solemn decisions” are his ex cathedra pronouncements.  Thus, The Catechism Explained tells us the same truth as the other catechisms, viz., that the pope is not always infallible whenever he speaks about the Faith or morals but only when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., only “in his solemn decisions”.

Therefore, except when the pope is protected by the Holy Ghost under the conditions of his special ex cathedra authority, anything else that he says on matters of religion is not infallible and can be false (heresy).

So, we see that it is false to say that a pope cannot make heretical statements. 

But what about the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine (referenced above, as quoted by the sedevacantist), namely, “the Pope … cannot preach heresy”?  We just saw that the Catholic catechisms concur that the Pope can indeed teach heresy.  We must therefore interpret St. Robert Bellarmine as meaning that the pope cannot become a formal heretic, as explained further below.

The First Vatican Council’s Definition of Papal Infallibility Shows the Same Truth as do These Catechisms Quoted Above: viz., that the Pope’s Infallibility is Limited to Those Times When He Speaks Ex Cathedra.

The dogmatic teaching of Vatican I on the subject of the pope’s ex cathedra infallible authority shows that any other time – except when he invokes this ex cathedra infallible authority – the pope can indeed make a heretical statement because he is not then protected by the safeguard of this special promise of the Holy Ghost’s protection against teaching heresy.  Here is Vatican I’s dogmatic declaration from the Council’s Session IV, ch.4:.

†      we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

❖  when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

➢  that is, when,

1.   in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

2.   in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

3.   he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

❖  he possesses,

➢  by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

❖  that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

❖  Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

All formatting and emphasis are in the original.

Notice that Vatican I’s dogmatic definition teaches us when the pope is infallible, viz., when he speaks according to the conditions for using his ex cathedra authority.  Plainly, the pope is not infallible every time he speaks on a matter of the Faith or morals.  Plainly, when the pope is speaking non-infallibly, he can err on a matter of the Faith or morals; that is, he can teach heresy.

The First Vatican Council was defining when the pope speaks infallibly.  The Council was telling us that, when he teaches infallibly, we know with complete certitude that what he teaches is true.  The Council was teaching us that, in the absence of using his ex cathedra authority, the pope might be wrong, not that at any other time he might have ceased be the pope.  In other words, the ex cathedra conditions are conditions of infallibility not conditions of sede vacante.  The absence of those conditions shows the possibility of error not that he ceased to be pope.

So, looking at the language of Vatican I’s decree (above), we see that the pope is not always protected from making heretical statements.  That is, the pope can teach heresy. 

This same truth is also shown in a second way: viz., by the fact that Vatican I even made the effort to solemnly define those ex cathedra conditions at all.  Why would the Council “bother” clarifying those conditions if the pope could never teach heresy under any conditions (and thus is supposedly infallible anytime he speaks about the Faith or morals)?

C.  Additional Reasons Why We Know that the Pope Can Teach Heresy When Not Speaking Ex Cathedra.

1.    Contrary to fact, if it were true that a pope could never teach heresy, this would mean that the pope cannot err if he says something about the Faith or morals even at the dinner table or in a sermon or in private correspondence.  Even if the sedevacantist (quoted above) did not realize the breadth of his own false assertion, nonetheless that is what he said, viz., that a pope “cannot teach error” (or heresy). 

By contrast, the dogma taught by Vatican I shows that the pope’s infallibility requires specific conditions manifesting a fitting solemnity of the dogmatic declaration as well as the pope’s deliberate and careful intent to teach an irreformable truth of the Faith or morals.  Plainly, the sedevacantist is wrong that the pope can never teach heresy, i.e., never make a heretical statement and become a material heretic.

2.    If it were true the pope spoke infallibly every time he said something about the Faith, then it would be the duty of his dinner companions and anyone who talks with him to record everything he says about the Faith or morals because there would be a continual string of (supposedly) “infallible” things which would be coming out of his mouth.

3.    The pope would have a sort of “Midas Touch”.  He would be unable to limit the continual stream of (supposedly) “infallible” dogmas coming out of his mouth, just as King Midas (in the children’s story) was unable to touch anything without it turning to gold.  Whereas King Midas was severely handicapped by being unable to live his life, e.g., touch his own daughter without turning her into a golden statue, likewise the pope would be unable to carry on a normal conversation or preach a sermon without (supposedly) changing the world with a continual stream of (supposedly) irreformable “truths” that he utters.  The pope would be afraid to share his thoughts with others (including his advisors) on a matter of the Faith or morals lest he (supposedly) “infallibly” “declare” a truth of the Faith.  This would severely hamper the pope because he has great need of free and full discussions with his advisors and others. 

Or, if we were to assume (contrary to fact) that the sedevacantists were correct, then the pope would not even need advisors because he would just say whatever he thought at the moment about Faith or morals, knowing whatever it was would be true.

 

4.    The history of the Church shows that the quotes attributed to Pope Innocent III and to St. Robert Bellarmine cannot mean that the pope is unable to make a heretical statement (and to become a material heretic), because the history of the Church shows this to be false. 

We see that various popes have been material heretics.  Let us look at two examples that illustrate this:

 

➢  Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) taught heresy insistently both before and during his papal reign.  He was a material heretic and refused to be corrected until shortly before his death.[14]

➢  Pope Nicholas I wrote a letter to the Bulgarians, in which he spoke as if baptism were valid when administered simply in our Lord’s Name, without mention of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.  But he was not teaching ex cathedra.  The question asked of Pope Nicholas was actually a different one: viz., concerning the minister of baptism, viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize.  He correctly answered in the affirmative.  But Pope Nicholas then answered “that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only.”  This is heresy!  Cardinal Newman cites this example quoting St. Robert Bellarmine in De Rom. Pont., iv. 12.[15]

Note: In the second of these examples (above), Cardinal Newman relies on St. Robert Bellarmine’s account that Pope Nicholas I told the Bulgarians that they could validly baptize without mentioning the Blessed Trinity.  This clearly shows that St. Robert Bellarmine well knew that Pope Nicholas I and other popes are capable of making heretical statements. 

Thus, when the sedevacantist author (mentioned above) attributes to St. Robert Bellarmine a quote saying that “the Pope … cannot preach heresy”, this does not mean that the pope cannot make a heretical statement, as is obvious by St. Robert Bellarmine himself pointing out Pope Nicholas’s (non-infallible) heretical teaching to the Bulgarians.

If the sedevacantist author (see above) supposes that his own St. Robert Bellarmine quote (near the top of this article) refers to the pope being unable to preach material heresy, we don’t interpret the sedevacantist as trying to deceive his readers.  We think that he probably did not look deeply enough into the topic to know better.

D.  Conclusion of this Part – a Pope Can Teach a Heretical Statement (Non-Infallibly) and Remain the Pope

We see it would be unreasonable to suppose that a pope cannot make a heretical statement.  We see that a pope can teach heresy, based on:

†      Basic catechism that even children learn;

†      Two reasons based on the words of Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of ex cathedra infallibility;

†      Considerations of reason; and

†      Considerations of Church history.

Thus, Catholics should not suppose that Pope Francis is not the pope because he makes heretical statements.

2. Can a Pope Ever Become a Formal Heretic?

A.  The Pope Cannot Teach Heresy Ex Cathedra

From the first part of this article, we see clearly that popes can become material heretics, and in fact, that some popes have been so.   But what about the quote the sedevacantist attributes to Pope Innocent III, saying that St. Peter’s successors “would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith”?   Further, what about the statement (which the sedevacantist attributed to Pope Saint Lucius I) saying that the Faith of the Roman Apostolic Church will not fail?   Do not these quotes contradict our claim that the popes can become material heretics?

The answer to this dilemma is that a distinction needs to be made between the pope (on the one hand) acting as a private individual (or “private theologian” as he is sometimes called), versus the pope (on the other hand) acting as the successor of St. Peter speaking with ex cathedra infallibility – that is, the pope acting in the See of Peter as such.  Assuming the quote attributed to Pope Saint Lucius I is correct (that the See of Peter will not fail in the Faith), this quote seems to mean that the See of Peter as such will not fail in the Faith.  The pope teaches most properly as the successor of Peter and as pope when he speaks with ex cathedra infallibility and it would be impossible (and it has never happened) that the successor of Peter as such, that is, as the infallible head of the Church speaking ex cathedra, can teach any error.

Another way of stating this same truth is that the pope will never teach heresy utilizing the conditions of ex cathedra (extraordinary) infallibility.

This is indicated in one of the quotes received along with the above reader’s question: The sedevacantist author quotes Francisco Suarez[16] as stating that:

in accord with His divine providence…[God] preserve[s] the pope from heresy in consequence of the promise that he shall never err in defining faith.  Furthermore, as such a thing has never happened in the Church, we may conclude that, in the providence of God, it cannot happen.’

Thus, the sedevacantist attributes to Suarez the (true) statement that the pope cannot err when defining the faith, that is, when teaching infallibly.  Indirectly, Suarez seems to acknowledge and teach that the pope can err when he teaches about the Faith or morals except when he meets the conditions laid out in the Vatican I definition of infallibility (which was already quoted above):

1.    exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

2.    in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

3.    he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.

B. Another Possible Interpretation: the Pope Will Never
    Become a Formal Heretic

Above, the sedevacantist attributed to Pope Innocent III the statement that St. Peter’s successors “would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith”.  This could be taken as meaning that no pope would ever deviate from the Faith by rejecting the Faith in its formal aspect.  (Recall the distinction we made above concerning formal vs. material heresy.)

In the section immediately above (entitled “The Pope Cannot Teach Heresy Ex Cathedra”), the emphasis concerned the pope’s inability to teach heresy infallibly.  In the present section, the emphasis will be on the pope’s inability to reject the formal aspect of the Faith, namely, the truth of the Faith based on God’s authority.

One consequence of this interpretation is that we would avoid the possibility that the Church could ever suffer an interregnum due to a pope losing his papacy (and his membership in the Catholic Church) through (formal) heresy.  This would be one God-given means through which the Church would always have successors, as Vatican I infallibly teaches.[17]

As shown above, St. Robert Bellarmine was well aware of Pope Nicholas I’s material heresy when teaching the Bulgarians, yet (as attributed by the sedevacantist author above), St. Robert states that a pope cannot preach heresy.  This would seem to indicate that St. Robert Bellarmine meant that a pope could never preach heresy as a formal heretic, resulting in his loss of the papal office and the creating of a papal interregnum. 

C.  How to Interpret Quotes About the See of Peter Remaining Unstained

The Catholic Church, in Her Divine element, is always unstained, although the pope and all other Catholics stain themselves.

We must distinguish between the Catholic Church as the Spotless Bride of Christ, in contrast to the human element of the Church.  The Church Herself, Who possesses the Mark of Holiness, is perfect.  The human element (i.e., individual Catholics, including the pope insofar as he sins and errs), can and has gone wrong. 

 

The Church is in no way blamable in Her Divine element for the heretical statements and sins of anyone, including the pope.  Here is how that truth is taught in The Catechism Explained:

 

The Catholic Church is Holy.  …  The misdeeds of some members, or abuses occurring within the Church are due not to the Church, but to the perversity of men.[18]

 

The sedevacantist author gave a quote (found above, which he attributed to Pope Damasus I) which said that the See of Peter has no stain or blemish, that quote would fit with the truth that the Church in Her Divine element can never make a heretical statement or commit the least sin, although (as we saw), an individual pope can do so.

 

When a pope is speaking ex cathedra, he is acting as the pure, stainless Bride of Christ.   But when the pope errs or sins, including preaching heresy (non-infallibly, of course), he is not speaking or acting as the pure Bride of Christ, but rather, he is only speaking as part of the Church’s human element and capable of error.  This is like, e.g., if the pope commits the sin of gluttony, he sullies himself but not the pure Bride of Christ in Her Divine element.

 

D.  Why Isn’t It More Frequently Stated Throughout the Centuries that the Pope Can Teach Heresy when Not Speaking Ex Cathedra?

When the human element of the Catholic Church is in times of spiritual health, it is unseemly to talk very much about the pope erring in matters of the Catholic Faith.  When the human element of the Church is spiritually healthy, there is often a filial and pious (but potentially dangerous) tendency to attribute inerrancy to the pope.

This is like when a family is blessed with a father who is a good head, it seems unseemly to talk about the evils that this father could do.

Similarly, when the Church enjoys the reign of a good pope, it is unseemly to say very much about the pope’s ability to teach heresy just like in a good family it is unseemly to say too much about the father’s ability to deceive his children.

E.  Conclusion

 

1.    We see that a pope is able to teach heresy (that is, to make heretical statements) when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  In other words, a pope can be a material heretic and some popes have been material heretics in the past.  The sedevacantist’s contrary assertion is merely a variation of the Protestant calumny that “you Catholics think that everything the pope says about religion must be true”.

2.    We know infallibly from Vatican I that a pope cannot teach heresy when teaching ex cathedra.

 

3.    St. Robert Bellarmine seems to teach that no pope could ever become a formal heretic.  If that is true, then that would be one reason (among many) why the sedevacantists are wrong in saying that we are presently in a long papal interregnum.[19]

 

4.    The Catholic Church, in Her Divine Element, as the unspotted Bride of Christ, can never sin and teach heresy but the human element of the Church – i.e., all Catholics (including the pope) can and do sin and err – even sometimes teaching heresy.

 

5.    Pope Francis has taught many heresies but never has he taught them using his ex cathedra authority.  These heresies do not show that he is not the pope.

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism.  It is available:

❖  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf

❖  Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

Below is the fourth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.

As context for this fourth article of this series against the error of sedevacantism, let us recall what we saw in the earlier three articles:

In the first article, we saw that we cannot know whether Pope Francis (or anyone else) is a formal heretic (rather than a material heretic only) – and thus whether he is outside the true Catholic Church – based simply on his persistent, public teaching of a heretical opinion.[1]

Then in the second article, we saw that we must not judge a man to be a formal heretic if he professes to be Catholic and says he believes what a Catholic must believe now, in order to be Catholic now.  When a person professes a heretical opinion, we must judge him in the most favorable light (if we judge him at all).  So, we must avoid rash judgment and we must not judge negatively the interior culpability of the pope and the 1.2 billion people who profess that they are Catholic.  We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics.[2]

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he is the pope.  Regarding any of the world’s 1.2 billion self-described Catholics who hold heresy, we must judge them (if we judge them at all) to be material heretics only, unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t qualify to be Catholics.[3]

In the third article, we examined briefly the important difference between persons in authority who fulfill their duty to judge those under their charge in the external forum, as compared to a sedevacantist or anyone else except God who judges the interior culpability of other persons and (rashly) judges them to be formal heretics.[4]

But we noted at the end of the third article that a person could ask:

If we are   If we are forbidden to judge for ourselves that Pope Francis knows that he is denying the Catholic Faith and knows he does not qualify to be a Catholic;

then

If we are   Are Catholics defenseless against the pope’s heresies, since we cannot declare – “for our own protection” – that he is not the pope?

This question presents the issue of whether our declaring that we have no pope provides us with better protection against his heresies.  We address this issue below.

Protecting Ourselves from Evil without Judging the Pope’s Interior Culpability

We have seen previously that, concerning any person who teaches heresy, we should not judge his interior culpability and declare that he is a formal heretic (and so is not a Catholic).  However, this does not mean we should let him teach catechism to our children.  This is because our children would be equally harmed by his errors, however interiorly blameless the man might be for professing his heresy.

Without judging a person’s interior culpability, we should take into account the person’s wrong-doing (which we must judge objectively).  For, just as when a man is prone to take other people’s umbrellas, we should keep a close eye on our own umbrella (when he is present) even if he innocently took all of those other umbrellas in the past.

Likewise, it is equally important that we warn people to avoid the teachings of anyone who teaches errors against the Faith, regardless of whether he teaches these errors innocently.  We should be wary and warn others about him simply based on his proneness to teach error (heresy), whether he is interiorly culpable or not – that is, whether he is a formal heretic or “only” a material heretic.

This truth applies to how we should regard popes too.  Just as if we had lived during the reign of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) – who persistently preached a particular heresy both before and during his reign – we would need to be especially vigilant against error with regard to all of his teachings, given that we have one example of his heretical teaching .[5] 

Likewise, since we live during the reign of Pope Francis, we must be especially vigilant with regard to all of his teachings since we know of many examples of his heretical opinions.  But in the case of neither of these popes should we rashly judge that he is a formal heretic and is not a “real” pope.  Instead, we must recognize that both popes are bad popes (in the objective sense of teaching heresy), especially Pope Francis.

Note that neither of these popes taught heresy using the conditions set forth for an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement.[6]  That would be impossible.  The Holy Ghost would never allow a pope to teach error infallibly.  So we know that it could never happen that Pope Francis or any other pope could use his ex cathedra infallible authority to teach error. 

The whole reason for the Church’s infallible assurance that no pope can teach heresy when he teaches ex cathedra, is because under any other conditions a pope CAN teach heresy.  That is, any other statement by any pope is not infallibly guaranteed to be true (by the sole fact that he made the statement)[7].  Such a statement could possibly be heretical.  Pope John XXII and Pope Francis are both examples of a pope teaching heresy (but, of course, not ex cathedra).[8]

Although we should always make sure that any pope’s statements harmonized with the deposit of the Catholic Faith, we should especially be on our guard about the statements made by a pope whom we know to have taught heresy.

But if we were to (rashly) judge the pope (or anyone else) to be interiorly culpable for his heretical opinion (or any other bad thing), this would not help us to protect ourselves any better but would only be our sin of pride.  By our rash judgment we would be raising ourselves in our own esteem and in the esteem of others by concluding that we know that the pope’s soul is lower (as compared to our own soul), than would be the case if his error were innocent and he were not interiorly culpable.[9] 

Follow-up Question: Catholic Candle states that sedevacantism is schism.  Is that an exaggeration or are all sedevacantists schismatics?

That is a good question!  But that topic will have to be addressed at another time.

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism.  It is available:

❖  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf

❖  Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

Below is the third article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.

Catholic Bishops throughout History have Judged and Excommunicated Heretical Subordinates.  Doesn’t this Show that it is Permissible for Catholics to Judge the Pope’s Culpability for Heresy?

We address this question after first setting forth the context for this question by summarizing the first two articles in this series.

Synopsis of the First Article of this Series

In a previous article[1], we saw that a pope does not cease to be pope when he preaches heresy, regardless of how public, manifest, and notorious his heresy is, as long as he does not know that he is holding a position which prevents him from being Catholic.

We saw that when any person (including the pope) understands that he denies what he is required to believe in order to be Catholic (i.e., to belong to the Catholic Church), then that denial causes him to cease to be Catholic.  This is to be a formal heretic.  If a pope becomes a formal heretic, he ceases to be pope.

By contrast, if a person (including the pope) holds a heretical position but he does not know that his position is incompatible with being a Catholic, he would be a material heretic and not a formal heretic.[2] 

We saw in that previous article that Pope John XXII (who reigned from 1316 until his death in 1334) was a public and material heretic, yet he did not cease to be pope.  This pope denied a dogma of the Faith without knowing that his position was heresy.  The dogma he denied (like all dogmas) was always part of the infallible Catholic Faith in spite of the fact that this dogma was not defined ex cathedra until later. 

But again, the dogma this pope denied was already infallibly part of the Catholic Faith because (as we know) all dogmas are part of the Faith from the beginning of the Church.  No dogma “becomes true” or “becomes a dogma” later, e.g., at the time it is defined ex cathedra.  Pope John XXII’s denial of the dogma constituted his denial of an article of the Faith because heresy is a statement against the Catholic Faith.[3]  But again, Pope John XXII was a material heretic and not a formal heretic, and because of this, he remained the pope until his death.

In the case of Pope Francis, however-publicly he teaches heresy, that does not tell us whether he remains pope precisely because we cannot be certain that Pope Francis understands that he is contradicting what he is required to believe in order to be Catholic. 

But the sedevacantists would reply (often in a tone of exasperation): “Oh, come on!  He knows he is contradicting the Catholic Faith.”  That reply raises the topic of the sedevacantists’ (objective) sin of rashly judging Pope Francis (as well as rashly judging the 1.2 billion other persons who profess to be Catholic but who hold false, conciliar positions).

Synopsis of the Second Article of this Series

Because of the sedevacantists’ readiness to judge Pope Francis by concluding that he “knows” he teaches heresy, we then considered (in a second article[4]) whether it is permissible for us to judge Pope Francis’s interior subjective culpability, based on his words and actions.  If it is permissible for us to conclude that he knows that what he teaches is incompatible with being a Catholic, then he is a formal heretic and is neither the pope nor a member of the Church.

We saw in this second article that the pope says he is Catholic and he has never said that he does not qualify to be Catholic.  Thus, for the reasons given in this second article, we should give him every benefit of the doubt and conclude he is Catholic (if we judge him at all).

In light of the fact that Pope Francis says he is Catholic and is the pope, if we were to say that he is not a “real” Catholic and that he is lying to us that he thinks he qualifies to be a Catholic, then we are rashly judging his interior subjective disposition and culpability. 

As St. Thomas Aquinas shows (as quoted in this second article), it is better to be usually wrong about persons’ interior disposition and culpability rather than to ever be wrong in judging too negatively any person (including Pope Francis).  Thus, unlike what the sedevacantists do, no faithful and informed Catholics would ever conclude that Pope Francis is not the pope based on the assertion that he “knows” that he does not qualify to be Catholic but won’t admit this “fact”.

Thus, we must avoid rash judgment and we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and judge (if we judge him at all) that he is the pope).

However, at the end of this second article, the question arose:

How can rash judgment be forbidden when the hierarchy of the Church has judged and excommunicated heretics throughout the history of the Church? 

That question raises the important topic of excommunications and judgments made in the “external forum” (as it is called).  Below, in the present article, we examine that question.

A Superior who Punishes his Subordinate in the External Forum, for the Good of the Community, is Not thereby Judging Rashly.

Civil and ecclesiastical authorities cannot read the interior souls of their subordinates any more than parents can read the souls of their children.  But because these authorities have a special duty to care for the community over which they have charge (like parents do, for their children), they have a duty to punish the wrong-doing of their obdurate subordinates, for the good of the whole community.  They must use their best efforts to administer justice, although they could be wrong in their particular judgments.  God will judge them according to how diligently they fulfilled their duty. 

Thus, a civil judge has a duty to punish murderers (and other criminals), although it is possible for him to be mistaken in his judgment.  The judge is judging outwardly, i.e., in the external forum.  He must do the best he can, and he judges based on the evidence in front him.

Similarly, Church authorities have a duty to protect the community over which they have been placed, although they could be mistaken in their judgments.  These authorities must punish persons who spread heresy even though these authorities could be mistaken, just as a civil judge could be mistaken.

Among other punishments, a superior can separate the person who spreads heresy from the flock (in other words, excommunicate the person).  Of course, the easiest way for a superior to protect his flock, is often to try to convince the material heretic that he is wrong, rather than to inflict punishment.

Here is how Pope St. Pius X explains the duty of ecclesiastical superiors to judge in the external forum and punish their heretical subordinates, even though a subordinate might not be interiorly culpable for any sin and might not be a formal heretic:

Although they [the Modernists] express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their doctrines, their manner of speech, and their actions [which are the outward, objective criteria upon which a man judges in the external forum].[5]

Thus, as Pope St. Pius X explains, a superior might be mistaken about “the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge” but nonetheless, the superior has the duty to protect the community over which he has authority, by judging the outward conduct of wrong-doers under him (and punishing, where necessary).

Although many times in the history of the Church, a bishop or the pope has fulfilled his duty to judge one of his subjects to be a heretic, this is in the external forum and could be in error.  But the superior was required to make this determination nonetheless because of his position of authority and his duty to protect the community.

We Have No Right to Judge the Pope Even in the External Forum

Of course, subordinates like us do not have this right or duty to judge others except those who are subordinate to us.  As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “[Judgment] is not prohibited to superiors but to subjects; hence they [viz., the superiors] ought to judge only their own subjects.”  Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.7, §1.[6]

But we Catholics are not the pope’s superior, with the task of punishing him in even the external forum.  The pope has no such superior on earth in the external forum.  Therefore, we must not judge him in the external forum, seeking to remove him from the papacy.

No One has a Right to Judge the Pope In the Internal Forum

Nor are we (or anyone) allowed to conclude that the pope “knows” that he rejects what he must believe in order to be Catholic.  This would be to judge the pope in the internal forum.  We and everyone else are forbidden to judge his interior subjective culpability because only God may do this.  Pope St. Pius X taught this truth in the following words:

[Concerning] the internal disposition of the soul, … God alone is the Judge.

Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X, §3, (full quote is above).

That we are forbidden to judge anyone’s culpability in the interior forum, i.e., regarding subjective culpability – including for teaching heresy – St. Thomas teaches in the following words:

 

He [God] has committed to us the judgment about exterior things, but He has retained to Himself judgment about interior things.  Do not therefore judge concerning these; ….  For no one ought to judge about another that he is a bad man: for doubtful things are to be interpreted according to the better part.[7]

                                                         

Thus, we must neither conclude that Pope Francis is not Catholic nor that he is not the pope unless he tells us that he knows that he does not fulfill the qualifications for being Catholic and being the pope.  If he were to tell us this, then we are not rashly judging him but merely believing what he tells us.

From this we see that we must not judge the subjective, interior culpability of the pope (or anyone else) and declare that he is a formal heretic.  The internal forum is God’s domain, not ours.  This is true even though the bishops and pope have been required throughout history to judge and punish persons in the external forum for their heretical teachings, in order to protect the flock from contamination.

Follow-up Question:

But a person could ask:

➢  If we are forbidden to judge that Pope Francis knows that he is denying the Faith and knows he does not qualify to be a Catholic;

then

➢  Are Catholics defenseless against the pope’s heresies, since we cannot declare – “for our own protection” – that he is not the pope?

This question presents the issue of what can Catholics do when we have a bad pope (or other bad superior or bad father).  This issue will be addressed in a future article.