Never mind Honorius, never mind John XXII (he taught that the dead dont have the Beatific Vision until judgement day), never mind other popes who taught errors.
Yawn. Another day, another anti-Papal canard from a supposed “traditional Catholic” (Trad LARPer) here blithely accusing an unquestionably true Pope of the past of teaching heresy (or at least grave doctrinal error). Here’s a thought for you: instead of simply believing whatever you see posted on a blog or Youtube video somewhere, the safer course is to simply look the stuff up. It’s not like these questions never came up before or that no clear answer was ever put forward. Where to look it up? Look it up where any Catholic priest would have looked it up before Vatican II: in the most recent dogmatic theology manuals approved by the Church. Why most recent? Because the most recent Church-approved manuals will include the most recent doctrinal pronouncements and clarifications from the Magisterium and also take into consideration any of the latest historical research to shed light on questions pertaining to Church history insofar as it relates to doctrinal matters. Let’s take a brief look famous case of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) who, as you alluded to, is accused of teaching that the souls of those who die in the state of sanctifying grace cannot see God in the fullness of the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment, since this issue is continually brought up to discredit the sedevacantist position andlegitimize”, as it were, Francis’ claim to the Papacy. The following succinct summary of the John XXII controversy comes from the treatise On the Last Things (De Novissimis) of vol. 4 of the extensive Jesuit dogmatic theology compilation Sacrae Theologiae Summa, which was originally published in Latin in 1956 and was recently
released in English for the first time.
St. Bernard [Doctor of the Church, 1090-1153] often taught that deceased just persons immediately after death will obtain immense happiness, but not the beatific vision until the resurrection [of their bodies].
John XXII, the Supreme Pontiff, followed him almost to the letter, and the
Friars Minor followed him, as is generally reported. He held that immediately after death some reward is given to the just, like seeing already the humanity of Christ in heaven, and that the wicked are punished in hell in some way;
but before the final judgment that neither the face-to-face vision of God is granted to the blessed nor the punishment of fire to the damned.
However,
he taught this as a private teacher, not as Pontiff, and he held it theoretically or for the sake of debate, thinking that he could be deceived in these matters and permitting others to think differently until the question should be decided authoritatively. Hence
he took care to have the matter studied by the Doctors, and frequently summoning debates in his presence on this point, he was prepared to abandon his opinion if it was shown to be against the faith. Indeed, on the day before his death he ordered a declaration of the true doctrine in the presence of all the Cardinals, etc. He said that previously he thought differently about this matter by pondering it and speaking about it. In this way he prepared the way for his successor, Benedict XII, to proclaim a definition of the true teaching [see
Denziger 530-531].
(Fr. Joseph F. Sagüés, S.J.,
Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB: On the Last Things, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. Original Latin published by BAC, 1956; English published by Keep the Faith, 2016.
Pope Benedict XII’s ex cathedra definition of the true doctrine concerning the fate of the departed was issued on Jan. 29, 1336. (Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus;
Denziger 530-531)
Thus we can see that the case of Pope John XXII is in no way comparable to
that of “Pope” Francis:
Pope John spoke (1) as a private teacher (2) on a matter not yet settled (3) in order to ascertain the truth of the matter so it could be defined, (4) meanwhile permitting others to differ from him. In other words, the Pope did
not exercise his Magisterium; he did
notcommit heresy; and although his view was erroneous, it was
permissible for him to hold at the time. The Church historian Fr. Reuben Parsons explicitly states that in holding his theory, Pope John was “in the full exercise of his right” (
Studies in Church History, Volume 2, 2nd ed.)
Contrast this with the apostasy of “Pope” Francis, who (1) issues
magisterial documents (such as
Evangelii Gaudium and
Amoris Laetitia) and has explicitly stated that he intends to
speak magisterially even in interviews; (2) therefore
as (putative) Pope; (3) on matters long
settled and defined, even directly revealed by God (cf. Ex 20:14); (4) for the sake of
changing established church teaching and practice.
On Dec. 3, 1334, one day before he was to die , Pope John XXII issued a formal retraction of any errors he may have held, in the bull “Ne Super His”, which was published by his successor, Pope Benedict XII (Pope John XXII, Bull “Ne Super His”;
Denzinger-Hünermann 990-991; available online
in Latin here.)
Let no one, then, appeal to the case of Pope John XXII as historical precedent permitting refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff! The traditional Catholic teaching on the Papacy remains as true today as it was when enunciated by Pope Pius IX in 1853:
“Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees” (
Encyclical Inter Multiplices). Pseudo-traditional “Catholics” who think they can find precedent in the Church’s past for resisting the Magisterium of a “heretical” Pope, forget that all these issues were debated extensively at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869-70) as the Pope and the bishops were preparing a dogmatic constitution on the primacy of the Pope and the extent of the infallibility of his Magisterium. The following anecdote was related by Abp. John Purcell of Cincinnati, who had attended the council:
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.
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern,
Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII
Further information on the supposed “heretical” Popes of the past can be found in the following articles:
-
The Question of a Heretical Pope considered by Vatican I
-
The “Heretical” Popes, Part 1: Pope Adrian VI
-
The Case of Pope Honorius I
-
The Truth about Pope Liberius
Historically those accusing Popes of magisterial error or heresy have typically been the enemies of the Church and of the Papacy (specifically Eastern “Orthodox”, Protestants, Gallicans, and Modernists), whereas those who have defended the Popes from such charges have enjoyed a great reputation for orthodoxy. The only reason why accusing Popes of the past of heresy or other magisterial aberrations is popular these days among self-professing “traditional Catholics” is the simple fact that Francis’ manifest apostasy combined with an irrational but dogmatic refusal of Sedevacantism leaves such people no other choice but to seek some kind of similar case in history to which they can point and say, “See, this Pope was just as heretical as Francis is, and the faithful resisted him, and no one said he wasn’t the Pope.” Such dishonorable efforts are guaranteed to fail because they aim at finding in Church history a theological absurdity (which is an utter impossibility). As I already pointed out here many times, insisting that Jorge Bergoglio is a valid Roman Pontiff does incalculable damage to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy.
It is tragic to see how many would sooner jettison the true Catholic teaching on the Papacy than recognize that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t a valid occupant of the office. Sadly, “Recognize-and-Resist” Trad LARPers ironically prefer having a Pope to the very meaning of the Papacy itself. For them, it is more important to have the papal office occupied than to preserve the correct understanding of what the papal office is. They have traded the Papacy for a “Pope” so to speak, consequently they now have neither: they have no true Pope and they no longer have the correct understanding of the Papacy either.
