On a heretical pope: reply to Dr John Lamont

The top of the newly-restored baldachino in St Peter's, Rome, on the occasion
of the traditionalist pilgrimage 'Ad Petri Sedem': to the See of Peter.

My latest on 1Peter5. It begins:

I am in debt to Dr John Lamont for his thorough discussion of the question of papal heresy. It is a problem that does not have a definitive explanation in magisterial texts, but as many important theologians and canonists of past centuries agree, it is one that has to be faced. Contrary to a naïve ultramontanism, it is not impossible for a pope to espouse heretical opinions, and indeed it has happened more than once in the past. The question is, what happens then?

This possibility is in itself not a challenge to the doctrine of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility has been very carefully defined at the First Vatican Council, and naturally it was defined very narrowly. The Pope’s public teaching on matters of faith and morals is guaranteed free from error (not, be it noted, inspired, like Scripture, only preserved from error) when he teaches the whole Church in the most solemn manner. Such teaching is not at issue here. A heretic is a heretic even if he never teaches anything solemnly. I might be a heretic even if I never express my heresy to another human being – although, in that case, no-one would know. The most likely case of papal heresy would be a pope harboring heretical opinions which are expressed in a private capacity, or at least in a less solemn mode of teaching, such as (on the usual historical reading) Pope John XXII teaching from the pulpit against the Particular Judgement in the 14th century.

Dr Lamont’s particular target is the much-followed view of Cajetan and John of St Thomas, that can be summarized rather simply as follows. They accept that a heretic cannot hold office in the Church, since the rejection of the Faith implies self-expulsion from the Church. (This is a theological notion of membership of the Church.) However, except in the most extreme emergencies, members of the Church should be able to rely on apparent office-holders wielding genuine authority, since this has implications for the salvation of souls. So bishops and others in the Church can continue to exercise their offices until such time as they are legally convicted of heresy: that is, denounced by their superiors, perhaps in the context of a canonical trial.

Read the whole thing there.

Support the Latin Mass Society