This article was published in Vatican Insider last November.  Traditional Catholics should be familiar with its assumptions and arguments.  It is unfortunate but true that many traditional Catholics share the same assumptions and consequently have a problem with addressing the conclusions.  My husband has been in an exchange with the author, Mr. Emmett O'Regan on his blog site.  I think the arguments are good and would like to share them with the members of CathInfo and invite others to offer their objections to Mr. O'Regan. This argument is used by the defenders of Pope Francis making him their Rule of Faith so it is important that they be challenged. Unlike most, Mr. O'Regan is fair enough to let critical comments concerning his articles to be posted on his blog.



The Heretical Pope Fallacy
The Official Relatio of Vatican I on the Dogmatization of St. Bellarmine’s “Fourth Opinion”
Vatican Insider | Emmett O'Regan | November 12, 2017
Original Article: http://www.lastampa.it/2017/12/11/vaticaninsider/eng/comment/the-heretical-pope-fallacy-HSbi69IW7szxYdqPR1bHmO/pagina.html
 
Emmett O'Regan blog posting: http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-heretical-pope-fallacy.html
 

Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve:
What about the case of Pope Honorius? I found this info about him.

Honorius I was the only pope to have been formally condemned for heresy. In the early decades of the 7th century, in the context of the controversy over the two wills of Christ. Honorius upheld the doctrine of the one will in Christ, or “monothelitism”, which was however later declared to be in contrast with the dogma of the two natures, divine and human, a doctrine solidly founded on biblical revelation and solemnly decreed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Here is the text with which, in 681, after his death, the third ecuмenical Council of Constantinople, the sixth ecuмenical council, condemned him together with Patriarch Sergius:

“Having examined the dogmatic letters written by Sergius, in his time the patriarch of this imperial city. . . and the letter with which Honorius responded to Sergius, and having seen that they are not in keeping with the apostolic teachings and with the definitions of the holy councils and of all the illustrious holy Fathers, and that on the contrary they follow the false doctrines of the heretics, we reject them and execrate them as corruptive.”

It seems pretty clear that Honorius did teach heresy in some way. Did Bellarmine say anything about that case?
19 December 2017 at 00:59
 
Emmett O'Regan:
Yes Sr. Lorraine, Pope Honorius is a favourite for Protestants to undermine the dogma of papal infallibility. If we have ever had a pope who defected from the Faith, then obviously Christ's prayer for the never-failing faith of Peter and his Successors was futile. If a pope could ever defect from the faith, then papal infallibility would obviously be completely illogical. Pope Honorius never held to formal heresy in a public capacity though, and his case simply falls into the category of ignorance before a teaching is fully defined by the Church. Remember that St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Should he be considered to be an heretic as well as Honorius? Bellarmine devotes the whole of Book 4 of De Controversiis to show that no pope has ever fell into formal heresy, which is a gift presented to the Apostolic See alone. Pastor Aeternus completely and definitively rules out the idea of an heretical pope. If we believe that a pope can fall into formal heresy, then we deny the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
 
D. M. Drew:
There are a number of problems with your reply to Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve on December 20.
 
Firstly, no Church father or doctor or magisterial docuмent has ever claimed that each individual pope possessed a "never-failing faith."  St. Thomas and Rev. Haydock do not even address the question in their commentaries.  Rev. Cornelius a Lapide in his great Commentary specifically addresses this question and says that the "never-failing faith" was a personal grace granted to St. Peter alone.  The promise to his successors was that they would never engage the Church's attribute of infallibility to teach error.  Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by at the Sixth Ecuмenical Council that was approved by the Pope Leo II.  It matters not whether his heresy was formal or only material except to Honorius himself.  If the pope is taken as the rule of faith, then he must be preserved from even material heresy because for the faithful following his example it would make no difference.
 
Furthermore, there is not logical contradiction between Infallibility and a pope being a heretic and more than the heretic, Caiaphas being the high priest, who was a Sadducee and denied the doctrine of the resurrection, prophesized being the High Priest, that Christ should die for the nation. Even Balaam's Ass can be used by God to teach the truth.  
St. Thomas' denying the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with this argument. St. Robert Bellarmine may or may be correct that a pope has never fallen into formal heresy but the point is moot.  Again, it makes no difference whatsoever, except to the pope himself, whether or not the heresy is formal or merely material.
 
Pasto Aeternus does not rule out the possibility of a heretical pope.  The claim is absurd since we known that Pope Honorius was a heretic.  It is the rather the contrary.  The narrative in defending the dogmatic declaration specifically references the scriptural passage regarding the never-failing faith, but the dogmatic definition limits this grace to specific conditions when the pope can and does engage the attribute of infallibility Christ endowed His Church. Outside of these specific conditions, the pope, teaching by his grace of state can and has taught error.
 
Lastly, your understanding of the indefectibility of the Church is nothing more than a common theological opinion which does not hold up under close examination.  St. Pius X in Pascendi says that the Church has three functions: to govern, to teach, and to offer worship (to sanctify).  These three actions correspond to the three attributes of the Church: Authority, Infallibility, and Indefectibility.  The attributes of the Church are only secondarily and accidentally attributes of any individual pope.  The attribute of Indefectibility relates primarily to worship and the sacraments to sanctify the faithful.  A pope falling into heresy would not overturn the indefectibility of the Church unless all faithful followed him in his heresy.  The proof of the indefectibility of the Church is not that Honorius was not a "formal" heretic.  It is that the all the faithful of the Church did not follow him in his heresy.
 
Scripture and Tradition are the remote rule of faith.  The proximate rule of faith is DOGMA.  The pope is not the rule of faith.  The pope is only the efficient and accidental cause of DOGMA. God is the formal and final cause of DOGMA. DOGMA is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  When a pope departs from DOGMA those that make him their rule of faith will follow him into heresy.  But by the Indefectibility of the Church, God will prevent him from being followed by all the faithful of the Church in his heresy. And by the Infallibility of the Church, God will not permit the pope to engage the Extra-ordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church to teach his heresy.
 
Drew
 


 
Emmett O'Regan:
Drew, the Church Doctor St. Robert Bellarmine clearly shows in De Controversiis Book 4 Chap III that the tradition that each pope has a never-failing faith is very ancient indeed, and is part of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which is again quite clearly stipulated in Pastor Aeternus. It simply cannot be proven that Pope Honorius was a formal heretic (no matter how much sedes and Protestants insist), and indeed the indefectibility of the Church excludes this possibility. If a pope was able to defect from the Faith, then the Apostolic See is not indefectible. If you insist that Pope Honorius was an heretic (or Pope Francis, for that matter), then you are denying a dogma of the Faith, since the indefectibility of the Church was given to the office of St. Peter alone, and not to the Church as a whole.
 
D. M. Drew:
Again, it makes no difference whatsoever (except for the pope himself), if the pope is a formal or merely material heretic.  The effect is the same. If the purpose of the "never-failing faith" is "that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine" (Pastor Aeternus), it is immaterial to the faithful if the person leading them into error is malicious or not.  The effect is the same!
 
Again, you assume that your common understanding of the Church's attribute of Indefectibility is whatever you say.  Not so.  The indefectibility of the Church was not that Pope Honorius was only a 'material heretic.'  The indefectibility of the Church is manifest by the fact that all the faithful did not follow him in his heresy.
 
If St. Robert Bellarmine believed that every pope possessed a 'never-failing faith', then it would be heresy to entertain the contrary which he did entertain.
 
Drew
 


Emmett O'Regan:
Again, I reiterate, there can be no other interpretation of Pastor Aeternus than that the gift of never-failing faith was conferred on the Successors of St. Peter. This teaching is crystal clear:

"This gift of truth and *never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See* so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell." Pastor Aeternus Chap IV par. 7
 
D. M. Drew:
What you affirm as "crystal clear" is in fact absurd.  Your interpretation is only possible if you hold that the pope as your rule of faith and not DOGMA. Big mistake.
 
Your claim is not even addressed by St. Thomas or Rev. George Haydock in their scriptural commentaries.  Their silence on this pretend doctrine should tell you everything a faithful Catholic needs to know.  Rev. Cornelius a Lapide specifically addresses and directly denies this claim in his Great Commentary written during the height of the Protestant reformation.  Much of the commentary of Lapide is directed against the Protestant corruption of Holy Scripture and this is one of them.  It is a Protestant absurd characterization of papal authority which you are repeating.  If there were a single Church father who held that every pope personally possessed a "never-failing faith," it would have been cited by these authorities.  There is not one, not one who ever held this novelty.  Further, it would be heresy to even hold the possibility of a pope every being merely a material heretic and yet the possibility is freely discussed by many theologians and saints. 
 
Pastor Aeternus specifically references Luke 22:32 as its scriptural authority for the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility.  Therefore, the dogma itself, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, provides the proper understanding of the narrative text.  The "never-failing faith" of St. Peter's successors means that the Chair of Peter, either in the Extra-ordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, when teaching on matters of faith and/or morals, engaging the attribute of Infallibility that Christ has endowed His Church, will teach without the possibility of error so that, "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell." Pastor Aeternus Chap IV par. 
 
You have turned the decree on its head.  The only part of Pastor Aeternus that is infallible is the specific definition of the doctrine on papal infallibility.  That is the DOGMA.  It is the DOGMA, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that determines the proper understanding of the narrative and not the narrative that gives license to interpret the DOGMA in a non-literal sense.  The DOGMA does not say that the pope is  infallible whenever he speaks on any question of faith or morals in any capacity whatsoever because his personal faith is the rule of faith for all Catholics.  You have turned the pope into a divine oracle.  His duty is no longer to defend the deposit of revealed truth but rather he becomes the revealer.  This is historically absurd.  An ecuмenical council, affirmed by Pope Leo II, has already declared Pope Honorius a heretic.  You end up with an infallible-infallible magisterium and a non-infallible infallible magisterium and therefore, a pope who is infallible in all that he says and does because every human act has a  moral dimension without exception.   
 
It should be remembered that the famous dictum of St. Augustine that 'Rome has spoken, the case is finished,' was initially indirectly addressed to the reigning pope who was deviating from the decrees of his predecessors in the See of Peter regarding the Pelagian heresy.  The pope is subject to dogmatic truth as much as every other Catholic.
 
Drew
 
 

.
It seems to me that Drew makes a strong argument here.
.

Drew is an extremely well spoken proponent of basic, fundamental Catholic theology.

This crisis has gotten very many bright minds to succuмb to some really wild conspiracy theories and ideas about the pope and his office in order to cast doubt or reject the man in the Chair altogether, it is refreshing to hear the simple truth of the matter.

Thanks Drew and thanks for posting this Maria!

Firstly, no Church father or doctor or magisterial docuмent has ever claimed that each individual pope possessed a "never-failing faith."  St. Thomas and Rev. Haydock do not even address the question in their commentaries.  Rev. Cornelius a Lapide in his great Commentary specifically addresses this question and says that the "never-failing faith" was a personal grace granted to St. Peter alone.  The promise to his successors was that they would never engage the Church's attribute of infallibility to teach error.  Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by at the Sixth Ecuмenical Council that was approved by the Pope Leo II.  It matters not whether his heresy was formal or only material except to Honorius himself.  If the pope is taken as the rule of faith, then he must be preserved from even material heresy because for the faithful following his example it would make no difference.
 

This is a good point, Mr. Drew. Whether the heresy is material or formal, is completely irrelevant as the effect would be the same.

However, I have read these D.R scriptural annotations on Luke 22:32 which would support Bellarmine's position on the faith of each, individual pope not failing.


Quote

Neither was this privilege of St. Peter's person, but of his Office, that he shall not fail in faith; but even confirm all other in their Faith. For the Church, for whose sake the privilege was thought necessary in Peter the Head there of, was to be preserved no less afterward, then in that Apostle's time. Whereupon all the Fathers apply this privilege of not failing and of confirming other in faith, to the Roman Church and peter's successors in the same.

To which, saith St. Cyprian, infidelity or false Faith cannot come. And St. Bernard saith writing to Innocent Pope, against Abaliardus the Heretic, we must refer your Apostleship all the scandals and perils which may fall, in matter of faith specially. For there the defects of faith must be helped, where faith cannot fail.

For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.  

Popes may err personally; but not judicially or definitely. I now think that the evidence of a Pope never falling into heresy is more outweighing than the evidence otherwise.  I agree that the Pope is not the rule of Faith; but the whole Traditionalist movement is based upon errors found in nothing less than an ecuмenical Council. The annotation is above is very explicit in describing when the Pope may not judicially err, even when he errs in his private capacity

I agree that the Pope is not the rule of Faith; but the whole Traditionalist movement is based upon errors found in nothing less than an ecuмenical Council.

Yep.  That's the problem now, isn't it?  And people are trying to come up with explanations for how this could have happened ... including SVism.  I've always said that the argument isn't about infallibility but about indefectibility.  Catholics can quibble about the precise limits of infallibility, but to post that an Ecuмenical Council could have gone so badly off the rails that Catholics would be forced to repudiate it in order to keep their faith intact, that crosses the line squarely into indefectibility.

Furthermore, there is not logical contradiction between Infallibility and a pope being a heretic and more than the heretic, Caiaphas being the high priest, who was a Sadducee and denied the doctrine of the resurrection, prophesized being the High Priest, that Christ should die for the nation.

Interesting you mentioned that. In the very same scriptural commentary on Luke 22:32, right after the paragraph posted above, we find this:

And no marvel that our Master would have his Vicar's Consistory and Seat infallible, seeing even in the old Law the high Priesthood and the Chair of Moses wanted not great privilege in this case, though nothing like the church's prerogative. But in both, any man of sense may see the difference between the person, and the Office, as well in doctrine as life. Liberius in persecution might yield. Marcellinus for fear might commit Idolatry, Honorious might fall into Heresy, and more than all this, some Judas might creep into the Office: and yet all this without prejudice of the Office and the Seat, in which saith St. Augustine Our Lord hath set the doctrine of Truth, Caiphas by privilege of his office prophesied right of Christ, but according to his own knowledge and faith, knew not Christ.  

I agree that there is not enough evidence in Magisterial teaching which would entirely rule out the possibility of a heretical pope. The possibility may be there, few theologians have discussed it, and it matters not if the heresy is material or formal. However, I disagree with the possibility of a pope (even if he himself guilty of heresy) being able to teach judicially or definitively errors inconsistent or contradictory with the Faith (for example, promulgating errors in an ecuмenical Council), because then that would compromise the promise of infallibility to the Seat and Office of Peter. I think the key here is the teaching part ... the pontifical right and function to rule and teach... 

I have to disagree.  Dogma is not the proximate rule of faith.  Neither is the pope himself personally.  Proximate rule of faith is the Magisterium.

Dogma is in fact the OBJECT of our faith.  We have the remote rule of faith in Scripture/Tradition, and the proximate role of faith in the Magisterium.

Truth of the matter is actually in between the two sides debating in the OP.

I think Ladislaus is correct. The rule of faith is the teaching Church (the Magisterium) which safeguards and teaches to every generation God's revealed truth found in both Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

What is this Magisterium or "teaching Church"? From the CE entry on "Rule of Faith":

Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20); but only one of the bishops, viz., the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of St. Peter; he alone can be regarded as the living Apostle and Vicar of Christ, and it is only by union with him that the rest of the episcopate can be said to possess the Apostolic character (Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Prooemium). Hence, unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ, it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith.

This is not what Lad said.  He said the Magisterium is the "role of" (not the rule of) faith.  Not sure what "role of" means. 

Sorry, that was just a typo.  Didn't notice it until now.  I MEANT "rule".