When popes can and cannot err
The recent controversy about Amoris Laetitia (AL) has provoked a lot of discussion among Catholics about (1) papal infallibility, (2) whether popes can ever err, (3) whether Catholics must always agree with the pope, and (4) whether the pope can become a heretic (and, if so, what happens). In this post I shall make the case that the answers to those questions are (1) that papal infallibility doesn't apply to AL, (2) yes, (3) sort of, and (4) probably (but no one knows).
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
The dogmatic history of papal infallibility is too long and complex for this post, but suffice it to say that it is a theological conclusion drawn by some medieval theologians on the basis of the beliefs that the whole Church is infallible in matters of faith (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q. 1, a. 9) and that the pope is the supreme authority in the Church (ibid., a. 10). Since they recognized as a matter of fact that the medieval popes made dogmatic statements that they expected every Catholic to believe, it followed that, when doing so, the pope must be infallible; otherwise, the entire western Church could fall into heresy by its obedience to the pope. The same reasoning was used at Vatican I, when the council under Pius IX defined belief in papal infallibility to be a dogma of faith, that is, something God has revealed (cf. Matt 16:18; Luke 22:32), which Catholics must therefore believe.(1)
At the time, some Catholic theologians defended an extreme view of papal infallibility (called Ultramontanism), according to which all official statements by popes must be believed as dogmatic, meaning that every time a pope puts pen to paper (hundreds of documents at this point), he teaches infallibly. To this day, many people, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, wrongly assume that this is the case. This view is dangerous, since some papal documents contradict each other on some points, which would disprove papal infallibility. Vatican I explicitly rejected this extreme and false view, and laid down the following limits on papal infallibility.
Firstly, the pope can be infallible only when he speak ex cathedra, which means "from the chair" of St. Peter, "as shepherd and teacher of all Christians."(2) In other words, if he is speaking only as a theologian (for example, the pope's recent book The Name of God Is Mercy) or as a priest or the bishop of the diocese of Rome (for example, his daily sermons), he is just as fallible as any theologian or bishop. Secondly, the pope must speak about faith or morals (not math, science, history, etc.). If the pope were to say tomorrow, "I define and proclaim by my supreme apostolic authority that the product of two real, negative integers is always negative," we would necessarily conclude that the pope had lost his mind, not that his false statement is true. Thirdly, and this is the real catch, the pope can be infallible only when defining a doctrine as one to be definitively held by all Catholics. In other words, he has to be declaring a dogma, not giving ordinary teaching. Whether this is the case with any particular papal utterance has to be judged from the wording and context (a job for qualified experts in Catholic theology). But all Catholic theologians agree that the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception (in 1854) and Assumption of Mary (in 1950) meet the criteria, and that papal encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, etc., do not. Thus we can conclude with certainty that no part of AL teaches infallibly.
PAPAL FALLIBILITY
It follows with inescapable logic that any papal statements that do not meet these criteria may contain untrue statements. After all, if it wasn't given infallibly, it must have been given fallibly, that is, with the possibility of error. Obviously this does not mean it must contain errors, and one assumes the popes, who employ well trained experts to help them, do their best to avoid saying anything they think might be false. Nevertheless, this capacity for error is explicitly stated in a 1990 document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Donum Veritatis, section 24. This document labels non-dogmatic papal statements "per se not irreformable," a circumlocution for "potentially erroneous." I quote the relevant portions:
In other words, popes may make mistakes that will need to be "rectified." Since the 19th century, the popes have written a great deal about issues that pertain to the "prudential order," on topics such as religious freedom, ecumenism, other religions, women's liberation, labor laws, the economy, marriage and family issues, human rights, science, art, mass communication, particular wars and political crises, the environment, and other issues of modern life. Even though based on "solid principles," such texts may turn out to be "deficient" in some particulars. For example, some portions of Pius IX's infamous Syllabus of Errors stand in stark contrast with some teachings of Vatican II and St. John Paul II. This is why Ratzinger specifically mentioned, by way of example, the earlier popes' rejection of religious freedom, which was corrected by Vatican II's celebrated declaration Dignitatis Humanae. The Church now recognizes religious freedom as "a fundamental human right" (John Paul II, "Religious Freedom: Condition for Peace," January 1, 1988).
THE OBLIGATION TO ASSENT
I have seen some Catholics wrongly conclude from this possibility of error that they can just ignore what the pope says if they don't like it. This is gravely wrong. A recent example is illustrative: in 2015, the pope wrote an encyclical called Laudato Si' about issues related to the environment and climate change. People who imprudently or ignorantly claim that climate change isn't real ("a globalist hoax") tried to use this possibility of error to dismiss the encyclical. This is not only misguided, but fundamentally uncatholic. In the past, one considered such a negative attitude toward papal instructions to be characteristic only of the Catholic left; it has now become almost the default position of many on the Catholic right! If Catholics can just ignore and scorn what the pope teaches when we don't like it, why do we even have a pope? As G. K. Chesterton famously said, "We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong."(4)
As it happens, the Catholic Church has a specific notion of what response Catholics are expected to give to the ordinary (non-dogmatic) teachings of the popes: "religious submission of intellect and well" (Lumen Gentium 25). The word translated submission is obsequium, which is maybe a bit milder in Latin than the connotation submission has in English. In any case, it means that Catholics are expected and obligated to assent to what the magisterium teaches. It was universally acknowledged by theologians before the council, the council's own theological commission, and theologians since, that this obligation is not absolute. This is because the potential for error cannot be excluded, as explained above. Some Catholics wonder how we can assent to something that might be wrong, but of course all human beings do this every day of our lives. It does happen that some Catholics have trouble assenting in some cases, where, even after serious reflection and study, they are convinced that the pope erred and are thus unable, in conscience, to assent. It's regrettable that LG 25 does not spell this out clearly, but of course the council did not want to encourage dissent.
No penalty is imposed upon such dissent, though Donum Veritatis forbids the dissemination of dissent through the mass media (section 30).(5) This directive was widely ignored by Catholics who disagreed with some of the teachings of John Paul II. It is equally ignored today by those Catholics who disagree with some of the teachings of Francis. In our post-Enlightenment age, many educated people, regardless of their political leanings, find it hard to assent to something about which they are unsure, simply on the basis of authority, even that of the pope. This problem is not going to go away, and ultimately I think the Church will have to re-think it. In response to a letter by an American theologian that sharply criticized the pope (and implicitly rejected AL), the president of the U.S. bishops conference, Cardinal DiNardo, gave a statement supporting Francis. In this statement, he effectively reduces "religious submission" to the pope to what sounds like giving our dialogue partners the benefit of the doubt, especially when that "partner" is the pope! At least one commentator took this to be an anemic response, given that the U.S. bishops took a heavier hand under Benedict XVI. I think Catholics owe the pope, who is, after all, our Supreme Pontiff, more than the benefit of the doubt! Nevertheless, it is true that the mind can't assent to what it believes to be false.
CAN THE POPE BECOME A HERETIC?
Granted that popes can be wrong, can they actually become heretics, that is, can they deny dogmas of the faith and teach heresy? This question has been debated for centuries, and I recommend Dr. Jacob Wood's article on it (this in spite of the fact that he published it in Crisis, an anti-Francis traditionalist website). The bottom line is that it's an open, non-dogmatic question. St. Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, discusses the question in Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei. He defends papal infallibility: "When the supreme pontiff teaches the whole Church, in things pertaining to the faith he cannot in any way err."(6) This statement has to be understood in the sense that Vatican I defined it, as discussed above. But Bellarmine also treats the question whether the pope can fall into heresy (even though God would prevent him from defining his heresy as dogma). He favors the position that the pope cannot become a heretic, but he says that this is only a "pious and probable opinion." Probable in scholastic usage does not refer to mathematical probability; rather, it means that an argument can be supported through rational argumentation, as opposed to an "improbable," i.e., rationally unsupportable, opinion. (Opinions could also be "more probable," meaning that the arguments in favor of them were stronger or more convincing than those in favor of other, merely "probable" positions.) Bellarmine's reasoning is that the Holy Spirit would not allow the pope to become a heretic, since that would obviously be damaging to the Catholic Church. The magisterium has never weighed in on the question, and the opposite opinion, that the pope can become a heretic is widespread. This is in large part because there have been at least two popes who said things eventually recognized as heresy (as I shall explain shortly).
Assuming the thesis (which I consider "more probable") that the pope can become a heretic, what would would happen in such a case? A blog post from a year ago looks at Bellarmine's position on this question (which he considered in spite of his pious belief that God would not allow it). Bellarmine rejects the view, held by some at the time, that a heretical pope could be deposed (removed from office), either by an "imperfect" ecumenical council (meaning an ecumenical council without a pope) or by the college of cardinals. Rather, Bellarmine held that an openly-heretical pope would simply be deposed automatically, without anyone judging him. Nevertheless, the question remains wide open, as the magisterium has never addressed it.
There are no canonical procedures for judging or removing a pope, but there are some historical analogs that should be considered. First, the most famous case: in the 630's, Pope Honorius, in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople on the question of whether Christ has one or two wills, says expressly that Christ has only one: "We acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ." As the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia points out, this was said, not in a sermon or private letter, as some Catholics have tried to claim, but "in an official reply to a formal consultation." Forty years after Honorius's death, this view was condemned as heresy (called Monothelitism) and Honorius anathematized (condemned) by name, at the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680-81. This condemnation was repeated at later councils as well as by later popes. A second case: in the early 1330s, Pope John XXII preached sermons in which he advanced the thesis that the souls of the departed do not see God until after the general resurrection at the end of the world. Many theologians considered this heresy. Prior to his death in 1334, a consistory of cardinals met to debate the issue and rejected John XXII's view. He accepted their decision and withdrew his opinion. In 1336, his successor, Benedict XII, declared the rejected opinion to be heresy, in what some consider an exercise of papal infallibility. Finally: the council of Constance was convened in the 1410's under the auspices of a pope, John XXIII, who was retroactively judged illegitimate. The council successfully orchestrated the end to the Western schism, during which three men simultaneously claimed to be pope.
From these three cases it seems to me at least possible that in extreme circumstances, canon law notwithstanding (specifically canon 1404: "The First See is judged by no one"), a pope could be judged either by a consistory of cardinals or an ecumenical council. Each situation is different, and the theological significance of the details are hotly contested. It's worth pointing out that in the cases of Honorius and John XXII, their words were only condemned after the fact, so there is no reason to accuse them of bad faith. St. Thomas Aquinas, unlike some of his contemporaries (notably John Duns Scotus), did not accept the Immaculate Conception. Thomas argued that Mary was sanctified after "animation" (ensoulment) and before birth, so she, like everyone else, was saved and sanctified from sin by Christ (Summa theologiae III, q. 27, a. 2). Half a millennium later, Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception as a dogma (Ineffabilis Deus). The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople condemned Origen as a heretic for calling Christ and the Spirit "creatures," among other accusations, but he wrote at the forefront of theological debate, when terminology and conceptions were fluid and no dogmas beyond the "rule of faith" itself had been defined. He, too, acted in good faith and made theological contributions on a par with Aquinas. The development of doctrine in the Church must be taken into account. Nevertheless, it remains a fact of history that a pope can teach something, in an official letter or in a sermon, that will later be judged heretical.
In spite of that, neither Honorius nor John XXII was deposed. All things considered, I think the idea of deposing a pope, or declaring a pope deposed, for heresy to be extremely unlikely. Anyone who thinks Pope Francis (who is not a heretic) is about to be deposed, must be living on another planet. But if Cardinal Burke and others ever do publicly "correct" the pope (I'll believe it when I see it), they will probably cite the example of John XXII. Or they'll just remind us that Paul rebuked Peter publicly (Galatians 2).
(1) It remains an open question what sort of "secondary objects" (also called tenenda, meaning "to be held") can be defined infallibly. That is: what concepts (if any) are so closely connected to divine revelation that the Church can speak about them with certainty? For example, is the canonization of a saint infallible? What about the recognition of a particular council as "ecumenical"? What about particular aspects of the natural moral law that aren't mentioned in Scripture (e.g., contraception)? On this final question, most Catholic theologians in the 20th century, including Joseph Ratzinger, argued for the negative (they cannot be defined infallibly); see the sixth chapter of Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Church (originally published 1980).
(2) I quote from the English translation of the council's decrees found at http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm.
(3) Quoted in Joseph Komonchak, "Some Theological Reflections on Canon 812," 88-103 in Ex Corde Ecclesiae: Documents Concerning Reception and Implementation (2006).
(4) This quotation, its common misquotation, and the context may be found at https://fauxtations.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/chesterton-the-church-right-and-wrong/.
(5) For detailed considerations of the ordinary magisterium and the scope and limits of the assent which Catholics owe to it, see the seventh chapter of Sullivan here.
(6) Summus pontifex cum totam ecclesiam docet, in his quae ad fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest (Liber IV de Potestatu Spirituali Summi Pontificis, 3, p. 477 in this 1836 edition).
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
The dogmatic history of papal infallibility is too long and complex for this post, but suffice it to say that it is a theological conclusion drawn by some medieval theologians on the basis of the beliefs that the whole Church is infallible in matters of faith (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q. 1, a. 9) and that the pope is the supreme authority in the Church (ibid., a. 10). Since they recognized as a matter of fact that the medieval popes made dogmatic statements that they expected every Catholic to believe, it followed that, when doing so, the pope must be infallible; otherwise, the entire western Church could fall into heresy by its obedience to the pope. The same reasoning was used at Vatican I, when the council under Pius IX defined belief in papal infallibility to be a dogma of faith, that is, something God has revealed (cf. Matt 16:18; Luke 22:32), which Catholics must therefore believe.(1)
At the time, some Catholic theologians defended an extreme view of papal infallibility (called Ultramontanism), according to which all official statements by popes must be believed as dogmatic, meaning that every time a pope puts pen to paper (hundreds of documents at this point), he teaches infallibly. To this day, many people, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, wrongly assume that this is the case. This view is dangerous, since some papal documents contradict each other on some points, which would disprove papal infallibility. Vatican I explicitly rejected this extreme and false view, and laid down the following limits on papal infallibility.
Firstly, the pope can be infallible only when he speak ex cathedra, which means "from the chair" of St. Peter, "as shepherd and teacher of all Christians."(2) In other words, if he is speaking only as a theologian (for example, the pope's recent book The Name of God Is Mercy) or as a priest or the bishop of the diocese of Rome (for example, his daily sermons), he is just as fallible as any theologian or bishop. Secondly, the pope must speak about faith or morals (not math, science, history, etc.). If the pope were to say tomorrow, "I define and proclaim by my supreme apostolic authority that the product of two real, negative integers is always negative," we would necessarily conclude that the pope had lost his mind, not that his false statement is true. Thirdly, and this is the real catch, the pope can be infallible only when defining a doctrine as one to be definitively held by all Catholics. In other words, he has to be declaring a dogma, not giving ordinary teaching. Whether this is the case with any particular papal utterance has to be judged from the wording and context (a job for qualified experts in Catholic theology). But all Catholic theologians agree that the dogmatic definitions of the Immaculate Conception (in 1854) and Assumption of Mary (in 1950) meet the criteria, and that papal encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, etc., do not. Thus we can conclude with certainty that no part of AL teaches infallibly.
PAPAL FALLIBILITY
It follows with inescapable logic that any papal statements that do not meet these criteria may contain untrue statements. After all, if it wasn't given infallibly, it must have been given fallibly, that is, with the possibility of error. Obviously this does not mean it must contain errors, and one assumes the popes, who employ well trained experts to help them, do their best to avoid saying anything they think might be false. Nevertheless, this capacity for error is explicitly stated in a 1990 document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Donum Veritatis, section 24. This document labels non-dogmatic papal statements "per se not irreformable," a circumlocution for "potentially erroneous." I quote the relevant portions:
The Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent. [...] When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. [...] The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.Although the CDF avoids the word error, the sense is clear. They seem to assume that no pope would ever err on the essential tenets and principles of faith (but see my final section below); nevertheless, when the pope has to treat topics that contain "contingent and conjectural elements," that is, when he makes "interventions in the prudential order," his statements may contain some "deficiencies" that time will eventually reveal "were not sure." In his presentation of this text, the prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), explained this as follows:(3)
In other words, popes may make mistakes that will need to be "rectified." Since the 19th century, the popes have written a great deal about issues that pertain to the "prudential order," on topics such as religious freedom, ecumenism, other religions, women's liberation, labor laws, the economy, marriage and family issues, human rights, science, art, mass communication, particular wars and political crises, the environment, and other issues of modern life. Even though based on "solid principles," such texts may turn out to be "deficient" in some particulars. For example, some portions of Pius IX's infamous Syllabus of Errors stand in stark contrast with some teachings of Vatican II and St. John Paul II. This is why Ratzinger specifically mentioned, by way of example, the earlier popes' rejection of religious freedom, which was corrected by Vatican II's celebrated declaration Dignitatis Humanae. The Church now recognizes religious freedom as "a fundamental human right" (John Paul II, "Religious Freedom: Condition for Peace," January 1, 1988).
THE OBLIGATION TO ASSENT
I have seen some Catholics wrongly conclude from this possibility of error that they can just ignore what the pope says if they don't like it. This is gravely wrong. A recent example is illustrative: in 2015, the pope wrote an encyclical called Laudato Si' about issues related to the environment and climate change. People who imprudently or ignorantly claim that climate change isn't real ("a globalist hoax") tried to use this possibility of error to dismiss the encyclical. This is not only misguided, but fundamentally uncatholic. In the past, one considered such a negative attitude toward papal instructions to be characteristic only of the Catholic left; it has now become almost the default position of many on the Catholic right! If Catholics can just ignore and scorn what the pope teaches when we don't like it, why do we even have a pope? As G. K. Chesterton famously said, "We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong."(4)
As it happens, the Catholic Church has a specific notion of what response Catholics are expected to give to the ordinary (non-dogmatic) teachings of the popes: "religious submission of intellect and well" (Lumen Gentium 25). The word translated submission is obsequium, which is maybe a bit milder in Latin than the connotation submission has in English. In any case, it means that Catholics are expected and obligated to assent to what the magisterium teaches. It was universally acknowledged by theologians before the council, the council's own theological commission, and theologians since, that this obligation is not absolute. This is because the potential for error cannot be excluded, as explained above. Some Catholics wonder how we can assent to something that might be wrong, but of course all human beings do this every day of our lives. It does happen that some Catholics have trouble assenting in some cases, where, even after serious reflection and study, they are convinced that the pope erred and are thus unable, in conscience, to assent. It's regrettable that LG 25 does not spell this out clearly, but of course the council did not want to encourage dissent.
No penalty is imposed upon such dissent, though Donum Veritatis forbids the dissemination of dissent through the mass media (section 30).(5) This directive was widely ignored by Catholics who disagreed with some of the teachings of John Paul II. It is equally ignored today by those Catholics who disagree with some of the teachings of Francis. In our post-Enlightenment age, many educated people, regardless of their political leanings, find it hard to assent to something about which they are unsure, simply on the basis of authority, even that of the pope. This problem is not going to go away, and ultimately I think the Church will have to re-think it. In response to a letter by an American theologian that sharply criticized the pope (and implicitly rejected AL), the president of the U.S. bishops conference, Cardinal DiNardo, gave a statement supporting Francis. In this statement, he effectively reduces "religious submission" to the pope to what sounds like giving our dialogue partners the benefit of the doubt, especially when that "partner" is the pope! At least one commentator took this to be an anemic response, given that the U.S. bishops took a heavier hand under Benedict XVI. I think Catholics owe the pope, who is, after all, our Supreme Pontiff, more than the benefit of the doubt! Nevertheless, it is true that the mind can't assent to what it believes to be false.
CAN THE POPE BECOME A HERETIC?
Granted that popes can be wrong, can they actually become heretics, that is, can they deny dogmas of the faith and teach heresy? This question has been debated for centuries, and I recommend Dr. Jacob Wood's article on it (this in spite of the fact that he published it in Crisis, an anti-Francis traditionalist website). The bottom line is that it's an open, non-dogmatic question. St. Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, discusses the question in Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei. He defends papal infallibility: "When the supreme pontiff teaches the whole Church, in things pertaining to the faith he cannot in any way err."(6) This statement has to be understood in the sense that Vatican I defined it, as discussed above. But Bellarmine also treats the question whether the pope can fall into heresy (even though God would prevent him from defining his heresy as dogma). He favors the position that the pope cannot become a heretic, but he says that this is only a "pious and probable opinion." Probable in scholastic usage does not refer to mathematical probability; rather, it means that an argument can be supported through rational argumentation, as opposed to an "improbable," i.e., rationally unsupportable, opinion. (Opinions could also be "more probable," meaning that the arguments in favor of them were stronger or more convincing than those in favor of other, merely "probable" positions.) Bellarmine's reasoning is that the Holy Spirit would not allow the pope to become a heretic, since that would obviously be damaging to the Catholic Church. The magisterium has never weighed in on the question, and the opposite opinion, that the pope can become a heretic is widespread. This is in large part because there have been at least two popes who said things eventually recognized as heresy (as I shall explain shortly).
Assuming the thesis (which I consider "more probable") that the pope can become a heretic, what would would happen in such a case? A blog post from a year ago looks at Bellarmine's position on this question (which he considered in spite of his pious belief that God would not allow it). Bellarmine rejects the view, held by some at the time, that a heretical pope could be deposed (removed from office), either by an "imperfect" ecumenical council (meaning an ecumenical council without a pope) or by the college of cardinals. Rather, Bellarmine held that an openly-heretical pope would simply be deposed automatically, without anyone judging him. Nevertheless, the question remains wide open, as the magisterium has never addressed it.
There are no canonical procedures for judging or removing a pope, but there are some historical analogs that should be considered. First, the most famous case: in the 630's, Pope Honorius, in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople on the question of whether Christ has one or two wills, says expressly that Christ has only one: "We acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ." As the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia points out, this was said, not in a sermon or private letter, as some Catholics have tried to claim, but "in an official reply to a formal consultation." Forty years after Honorius's death, this view was condemned as heresy (called Monothelitism) and Honorius anathematized (condemned) by name, at the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680-81. This condemnation was repeated at later councils as well as by later popes. A second case: in the early 1330s, Pope John XXII preached sermons in which he advanced the thesis that the souls of the departed do not see God until after the general resurrection at the end of the world. Many theologians considered this heresy. Prior to his death in 1334, a consistory of cardinals met to debate the issue and rejected John XXII's view. He accepted their decision and withdrew his opinion. In 1336, his successor, Benedict XII, declared the rejected opinion to be heresy, in what some consider an exercise of papal infallibility. Finally: the council of Constance was convened in the 1410's under the auspices of a pope, John XXIII, who was retroactively judged illegitimate. The council successfully orchestrated the end to the Western schism, during which three men simultaneously claimed to be pope.
From these three cases it seems to me at least possible that in extreme circumstances, canon law notwithstanding (specifically canon 1404: "The First See is judged by no one"), a pope could be judged either by a consistory of cardinals or an ecumenical council. Each situation is different, and the theological significance of the details are hotly contested. It's worth pointing out that in the cases of Honorius and John XXII, their words were only condemned after the fact, so there is no reason to accuse them of bad faith. St. Thomas Aquinas, unlike some of his contemporaries (notably John Duns Scotus), did not accept the Immaculate Conception. Thomas argued that Mary was sanctified after "animation" (ensoulment) and before birth, so she, like everyone else, was saved and sanctified from sin by Christ (Summa theologiae III, q. 27, a. 2). Half a millennium later, Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception as a dogma (Ineffabilis Deus). The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople condemned Origen as a heretic for calling Christ and the Spirit "creatures," among other accusations, but he wrote at the forefront of theological debate, when terminology and conceptions were fluid and no dogmas beyond the "rule of faith" itself had been defined. He, too, acted in good faith and made theological contributions on a par with Aquinas. The development of doctrine in the Church must be taken into account. Nevertheless, it remains a fact of history that a pope can teach something, in an official letter or in a sermon, that will later be judged heretical.
In spite of that, neither Honorius nor John XXII was deposed. All things considered, I think the idea of deposing a pope, or declaring a pope deposed, for heresy to be extremely unlikely. Anyone who thinks Pope Francis (who is not a heretic) is about to be deposed, must be living on another planet. But if Cardinal Burke and others ever do publicly "correct" the pope (I'll believe it when I see it), they will probably cite the example of John XXII. Or they'll just remind us that Paul rebuked Peter publicly (Galatians 2).
(1) It remains an open question what sort of "secondary objects" (also called tenenda, meaning "to be held") can be defined infallibly. That is: what concepts (if any) are so closely connected to divine revelation that the Church can speak about them with certainty? For example, is the canonization of a saint infallible? What about the recognition of a particular council as "ecumenical"? What about particular aspects of the natural moral law that aren't mentioned in Scripture (e.g., contraception)? On this final question, most Catholic theologians in the 20th century, including Joseph Ratzinger, argued for the negative (they cannot be defined infallibly); see the sixth chapter of Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Church (originally published 1980).
(2) I quote from the English translation of the council's decrees found at http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm.
(3) Quoted in Joseph Komonchak, "Some Theological Reflections on Canon 812," 88-103 in Ex Corde Ecclesiae: Documents Concerning Reception and Implementation (2006).
(4) This quotation, its common misquotation, and the context may be found at https://fauxtations.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/chesterton-the-church-right-and-wrong/.
(5) For detailed considerations of the ordinary magisterium and the scope and limits of the assent which Catholics owe to it, see the seventh chapter of Sullivan here.
(6) Summus pontifex cum totam ecclesiam docet, in his quae ad fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest (Liber IV de Potestatu Spirituali Summi Pontificis, 3, p. 477 in this 1836 edition).
Comments
Pope Honorius I did not err. Patriarch Sergius did not write to ask him how many wills were in Jesus Christ, but simply to order and en to discussion on a separate question - how many energies are in Jesus. Sergius said nothing at all about how many wills are in Jesus. The only thing he said about that topic was that Jesus does not have two contrary wills. Pope Honorius I agreed with this statement and said, "We confess one will in Jesus because he did not assume the vitiated human nature tainted by Adam's fall, but the nature prior to Adam's fall." This obviously means that Jesus has a moral unity of will because Jesus does not have a sinful will, not the lack of a human will altogether. Every subsequent Pope and Saint Maximus the Confessor said these statements were orthodox, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council approved Pope Saint Agatho I's letter to that effect - they even said the letter was "divinely written." Pope Leo II clarified that Honorius I was condemned for negligence, not teaching anything untrue. See Hefele Volume 5 on Google Books, starting on Page 21.
Pope John XXII was 87 years old in an age without eye glasses or hearing aids, surrounded by enemies within and without Avignon, put nothing heretical in writing, in fact put the orthodox doctrine of the Beatific Vision in writing 3 times, and explicitly stated he was not defining anything but wanted the church to investigate the matter.
As for the canonical discussion of a hypothetical erring Pope, I recommend the writings of Cardinal Alfons Stickler, professor of church legal history, and Vatican Librarian and Archivist.