1 2 3 4

R. Sungenis: Once again, I have taken the liberty of underlining the key phrases in Vatican I’s statement. The problem here is that Mr. Larson is, again, not making the proper distinctions. Mr. Larson is stressing the “personal faith” of the pope, while Vatican I is speaking about the faith in the sense of God’s protection of the Church through the papal office. This is why Vatican I stresses the “deposit of faith.”

In other words “faith” is a synonym, at least in this context, for doctrine about the faith and about morals. This is precisely why, in the above two paragraphs, Vatican I uses words and phrases such as “new doctrine,” “faithfully expound the revelation,” “apostolic doctrine,” “all blemish of error,” “error,” “heavenly doctrine.” There is nothing here about the pope’s “personal faith,” even though that may be a secondary benefit from the papal office. Thus, when Jesus prays for Peter’s faith, it is not necessarily that Peter, in his own personal life, could not falter, but that when he exercises his office as pope, he will never fail. He could be very immoral, but when it comes to making dogmatic decisions for the Church, he will never fail.

For example, it’s no secret that Pope Sergius III (904-911) illegitimately fathered Pope John XI (931-935). Pope Sergius has been called “an unscrupulous man” who ruled the Church “arrogantly” (Quoted from page 162 of The Popes, A Concise Biographical History, edited by Eric John, Imprimatur, George L. Craven, 1962. Originally published in 1964 by Burns and Oates, publishers to the Holy See.)

Alexander VI (1471-1503) had at least six children, four of them by a Roman lady, Vanozzza dei Catanei (Ibid., p. 304.) “There is evidence” says The Popes: A Concise Biographical History that Alexander “maintained a mistress after he became pope and that her influence persuaded him to make her brother, Alexander Farnese, later Paul III, a Cardinal”. Alexander VI became especially known for advancing his children’s careers. John XII (955-964) who became pope at age sixteen, is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, (New York: Appleton, 1910) Volume VIII, p. 426). “There is no doubt” write the authors of The Popes, “that he (John XII) was a scandal to the whole Church” (P. 166).

At times, popes and bishops have accepted bribes for favors, as well as murdered political opponents. For example, Pope Sergius III “took the Papacy by force,” while Pope John XII is reportedly to have been “struck with paralysis while visiting his mistress” and died shortly after; and Pope Sixtus IV was involved in the plot to murder Lorenzo de Medici (The Popes, Eric John, pages 162, 166 and 301). Sixtus IV (1471-1484) made nepotism “the chief influence of papal policies.” His revenues, which exceeded 60,000 gold ducats a year, “enabled him to lead a life of luxury which astonished contemporaries and shocked many.” (The Popes, Eric John, p. 301). Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) a man whose morals were unsuitable for the papacy, would “openly avow his illegitimate children.” (Ibid., p. 302).

There are many more such examples that could be cited. The point is made, however. Vatican I is not speaking about the “personal faith” of the pope, but the faith he exercises in the papal office. If any of the above immoral popes had issued a dogmatic decree in their reign as pope, it would have been as infallible as when Pius XII issued the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

And, perhaps most important of all considering the contention between Mr. Larson and myself, I can’t leave Vatican I’s paragraph without citing its direct reference to the “high office” of the pope in its sentence: “Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all.”

So here we have a direct reference to the “office” of the papacy. Peter is not said to be performing from his “person,” but that he “might perform their high office.” Notice again, as we said above concerning the immoral popes, that is, even in the case of an immoral pope, when anyone of them “perform their high office” it is for the “salvation of all,” whereupon we are guaranteed divine protection that the pope will not make an official dogmatic error concerning the faith.

Mr. Larson: Secondly, “this gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair.” Vatican I, therefore, clearly declares that no Pope could ever lose his faith.
Third, this gift of never-failing faith was conferred upon Peter and his successors in order that “the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.” Mr. Sungenis, having denied this doctrine concerning the never-failing faith of Peter and his successors has, in fact, reinserted this “occasion of schism” into his own personal faith. In a recent discussion with a Sedevacantist published on his website, Mr. Sungenis says, “Considering the abominations of Assisi one would be remiss not to think there is a possibility that John Paul II is not the pope.” He would seem, therefore, to be flirting not only with schism, but also with Sedevacantism.

R. Sungenis: I’ll try to be patient with Mr. Larson at this point and just assume that he was making a rash judgment from something he misunderstands. The reason I made the statement about Sedevacantism is based on what the Church herself has recognized about those occupying the chair of Peter, that is, there is a distinct possibility that one claiming to possess the throne is not, indeed, a true pope. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, we have had 44 illegitimate “popes,” most who have occupied the chair of Peter for a certain length of time. Here are a few examples. Notice, in particular, that the antipope, Anacletus II, sat for EIGHT years (1130-1138) in the papal chair, while the true pope was in exile:

Hippolytus (217-236): CE, Vol. vii, p. 360: “He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two immediate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35).....afterward he became reconciled with the legitimate bishop and the Church of Rome.”

Novatian (251-258): CE, vol. xi, p. 138: “Novatian was a schismatic of the third century, and founder of the sect of the Novatians; he was a Roman priest, and made himself antipope.”

Felix II (355-365): CE, vol. vi, p. 30: “Pope (more properly Antipope), 355-58; d. 22 Nov. 365...The emperor, however, who was supplanting the exiled Catholic bishops with bishops of Arian tendencies, exerted himself to install a new Bishop of Rome in place of the banished Liberius. He invited to Milan Felix, archdeacon of the Roman Church...succeeded in inducing him to accept the office from which Liberius had been forcibly expelled...”

Ursinus (366-367): CE, vol iv, p. 613: “...a number of over-zealous adherents of the deceased Liberius rejected him [Damasus I], chose the deacon Ursinus (or Ursicinus), had the latter irregularly consecrated, and resorted to much violence and bloodshed in order to seat him in the Chair of Peter.”

Anacletus II (1130-1138): CE, vol. i, p. 447: “Pope, the title assumed by Cardinal Pietro Pierleone at the contested papal election of the year 1130....Though the Pierleoni were conceded to be one of the wealthiest and most powerful senatorial families of Rome, and though they had staunchly supported the popes throughout the fifty years’ war for reform and freedom, yet it was never forgotten that they were of Jewish extraction, and had risen to wealth and power by usury...the future Antipope...there can be no doubt that he was determined to buy or force his way into the Papal Chair. When Honorius lay on his death-bed, Pierleone could count upon the votes of thirty cardinals, backed by the support of the mercenary populous and of every noble family in Rome...[The] squadronisti...resolved to rescue the papacy from unworthy hands by a coup d’etat....to secure liberty of action, they removed the sick Pontiff from the Lateran to St. Gregory’s...Honorius dying on the night of 13 February, they buried him hurriedly the next morning, and compelled the reluctant Cardinal of San Georgio, Gregory Papareschi, under threat of excommunication, to accept the pontifical mantle. He took the name of Innocent II. Later in the day the party of Pierleone assembled in the Church of St. Mark and proclaimed him Pope, with the name Anacletus II. Both claimants were consecrated on the same day, 23 February, Anacletus in St. Peter’s and Innocent in Sta. Maria Nuova. How this schism would have been healed, had the decision been left to the canonists, is hard to say. Anacletus had a strong title in law and fact. The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populous of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him. Innocent sought safety in flight. No sooner had he arrived in France than his affairs too a favorable turn. “Expelled from the City, he was welcomed by the world,” says St. Bernard, whose influence and exertions secured for him the adhesion of practically the entire Christian world. The Saint states his reasons for deciding in favor of Innocent in a letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine. They may not be canonically cogent; but then satisfied his contemporaries....In the spring of 1133, the German King conducted Innocent, whom two great synods, Reims and Piacenza, had proclaimed the legitimate Pope, to Rome; but as he came accompanied by only 2,000 horse[s], the Antipope, safe within the walls of Castle St. Angelo, looked on undismayed. Unable to open the way to St. Peter’s...upon the emperor’s departure Innocent was compelled to retire to Pisa, and for four years his rival remained in undisturbed possession of the Eternal City....When Anacletus died [1138], the preference of the Romans for Innocent was so pronounced that the Antipope, Victor IV, whom the party chose as its successor, soon came as a penitent to St. Bernard and by him was led to the feet of the Pope. Thus ended, after eight years of duration, a schism which threatened serious disaster to the Church.”

Felix V, aka Amadeus of Savoy (1439-1449): CE, vol. vi, p. 31: “(Amadeus of Savoy), Anti-pope (1440-1449)...The schismatic Council of Basel, having declared the rightful pope, Eugene IV, deposed, proceeded immediately with the election of an anti-pope....Amadeus had been in close relations with the schismatic Council of Basle; and was elected pope, 30 October, 1439, by the electoral college of that council, including one cardinal (d’Allemand of Arles), eleven bishops, seven abbots, five theologians, and nine canonists....He took the name Felix V, and was solemnly consecrated and crowned by the Cardinal d’Allemand, 24 July, 1440.”

Mr. Larson: My final point concerning this analysis of the above passage from Vatican I concerns the first line, which we shall quote again: “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.” This quotation is one of the mainstays in the literature of the SSPX, Sedevacantists, and other fellow-travelers who would like to make the Pope guilty of heresy and loss of faith. I have seen it parroted virtually everywhere in “traditionalist” polemics, but I have never seen it placed in the context of the whole passage which I have quoted above. Standing by itself it could, of course, be twisted (by the perverse, according to Vatican I) to mean that the Pope might attempt to make new doctrine, and thus be a heretic. But in the context of the entire passage, it can be clearly seen that this sentence means just the opposite The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter in order that they never would become heretics, never lose the faith.

R. Sungenis: All I can say is that mere assertions by Mr. Larson will not suffice in providing proof of his claims. If he thinks that the “context” of the above passage somehow dissuades us from what appears to be the clear meaning of the passage, then he is obligated to prove his case by a citation and analysis of the context. We have already seen that Mr. Larson’s key error is his refusal to make the proper distinctions between a person and the office the person holds. Unfortunately, this causes Mr. Larson to levy the most presumptuous and judgmental accusations against those who disagree with him (e.g., “twisted by the perverse”). To me, there is nothing more “perverse” than an overly-idealistic view of a man occupying the papal office.

Mr. Larson: We might note here that Mr. Sungenis wrote an article for the Remnant titled When a Pope Errors. In that article he quotes the first sentence of the passage mentioned above (and never, of course, quotes the rest), and says that “Unfortunately, criticisms and questions about John Paul II begin right here.”

R. Sungenis: At this point Mr. Larson is now inferring for his reader that I am dishonest, claiming that I deliberately quoted only part of a passage in order to deceive the reader. Again, I’ll be patient with Mr. Larson and attribute his veiled accusations to his enthusiasm. Until if and when Mr. Larson gives us proof from the context that the above quote is not what it appears to be, then I think the reader can infer that Mr. Larson’s case is ill-equipped to defend itself.

Mr. Larson: If that be true, then criticism and questions about John Paul II begin with a profound distortion of the teaching of Vatican I, and with a heresy.

R. Sungenis: I think it is clear by now that the only one distorting the teaching of Vatican I is Mr. Larson. Be that as it may, since Mr. Larson referred to my article, “When a Pope Errs,” I think the reader should see the context of the passage in which I quoted from the Dogmatic Constitution. In this way, the reader can see for himself why we are concerned about John Paul II:

“Unfortunately, criticisms and questions about John Paul II begin right here. If we contrast Vatican I’s statement against what John Paul II has said about Vatican II, we begin to see the potential problems in his pontificate. For example, in the 1988 document Ecclesia Dei, John Paul II signed-off on the statement in section 5 which declares that Vatican II might contain new points of doctrine. It states:

Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council’s continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church (emphasis mine).

“Although John Paul II seems to escape censure by saying that Vatican II “perhaps” contained something new, or that he is only concerned with “points of doctrine” rather than “doctrine,” nevertheless, the mere suggestion that Vatican II taught something “new” in regard to doctrine (as opposed, for example, to teaching something new in regards to mere pastoral issues which would certainly be allowable), seems to contradict the very declaration of Vatican I against such possibilities. When one says “points of doctrine” it is normally understood as specific statements about doctrine, and certainly nothing outside of doctrine. Logic dictates that, if they are “new,” then they were not taught before. If they were not taught before, then they were not part of Tradition. It they are not part of Tradition, then they have the potential of being erroneous. Moreover, since “points” is used in the plural, it means that John Paul II interprets Vatican II as teaching a variety of “new” things. Whether his interpretation of Vatican II is correct or not is another issue, part of which will be addressed in this essay. Suffice it to say, however, John Paul’s statement in Ecclesia Dei is confusing and cause for concern as to what he really believes both about Vatican I’s decrees and the “continuity of tradition.”

“Moreover, when we consider the specific and ominous language of the Papal Oath, which solemnly warns the pope against propagating any new teaching, we shudder at the mere thought that John Paul II might interpret Vatican II as teaching new doctrine. The oath which each pope is required to take states:

“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein; To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess; I swear to God Almighty and Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared. I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I. If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice. Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”

“Not only is this language rather foreboding against any pope who would dare change or introduce something new into Catholic teaching, the italicized portions show that it is certainly a possibility that the pope himself could indeed disobey the oath and thus introduce new teaching, otherwise there would be no reason for him to take the oath if he was immune from such transgressions. Hence, our thesis is proved at the outset – the very oath required of the pope indicates that it is possible for the pope to err, and indeed, on the very issues of the faith he chooses not to protect under the domain of infallibility. END

Now, consider the following statements from popes about other popes:

Pope Innocent III († 1216): “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermo 4)

Pope Adrian VI († 1523), a pope of exceptional integrity, stated: “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (Quaestiones in IV Sent; NB: the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia states this work was published in 1512 from the notes of Pope Adrian’s student.)

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be an heretic and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.” “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Pope Adrian II († 872): “We read that the Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops), but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, the only offence which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious teachings”.

Now, I didn’t write these warnings, the popes did. If Mr. Larson has such high regard for the “person” of the pope, and thinks that person cannot err in whatever capacity Mr. Larson believes it to apply, then were these popes making an error when they said a pope, in his “person,” could err? Think about that one for a few minutes. It will have your head spinning. Think of the absurdities that are created if it is held that those popes were in error regarding whether a pope could be in error!

Again, the proper way to answer this question is by making the proper distinction between the “person” of the pope and the “office” of the pope. This is precisely why Vatican I laid down four very strict criteria regarding what is to be considered “infallible,” that is, without error of any kind. Unfortunately, Mr. Larson has trapped himself because he has failed to make the proper distinctions, and as a result, he makes the papacy look worse than it really is.

1 2 3 4