.png)
Can One Resist the Roman Pontiff?
The current crisis in the Church has led many Catholics to believe that resistance to the Pope is not only permissible but necessary to preserve the faith. At first glance, this seems a reasonable claim: after all, Catholics are bound to avoid error and reject novelties. But is this position truly Catholic? In this article, we examine the evidence.
Objection: It Seems that it is Possible to Resist the Roman Pontiff
At the Roman Synod of 869, Pope Adrian II declared:'Although we have read of the Roman pontiff having passed judgement on the bishops of all the churches, we have not read of anyone having passed judgement on him. For even though Honorius was anathematized after this death by the easterners, it should be known that he had been accused of heresy, which is the only offence where inferiors have the right to resist the initiatives of their superiors or are free to reject their false opinions, although even in this case no patriarch or other bishop has the right of passing any judgement on him unless the consent of the pontiff of the same first see has authorized it.' (Pope Adrian II, Roman Synod of 869, ap. Mansi, Ampliss. collect. XVI, 126; cited in On the Question of Honorius, cf. Amann, E. "Honorius Ier, pape", Dictionnarie de Théologie Catholique, VII, I, cols. 96-130).
This citation appears to support the principle that inferiors may resist a pope who departs from the Catholic faith, albeit without possessing the authority to pass judgment upon him without the consent of the Apostolic See.
'Although we have read of the Roman pontiff having passed judgement on the bishops of all the churches, we have not read of anyone having passed judgement on him. For even though Honorius was anathematized after this death by the easterners, it should be known that he had been accused of heresy, which is the only offence where inferiors have the right to resist the initiatives of their superiors or are free to reject their false opinions, although even in this case no patriarch or other bishop has the right of passing any judgement on him unless the consent of the pontiff of the same first see has authorized it.' (Pope Adrian II, Roman Synod of 869, ap. Mansi, Ampliss. collect. XVI, 126; cited in On the Question of Honorius, cf. Amann, E. "Honorius Ier, pape", Dictionnarie de Théologie Catholique, VII, I, cols. 96-130).
SED CONTRA
On the contrary, Cardinal Billot (Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi) examines the same historical case and reaches a different conclusion. He summarises it as follows:'We read that the Roman Pontiff has judged the bishops of all the churches, but we do not read of anyone who has judged him. Although, after his death, the Eastern churches anathematised Honorius, nevertheless, it must be recognised that he had been accused of heresy, by reason of which alone inferiors may resist the initiatives of their superiors or freely reject the wicked senses. Although even in that case it would not have been ever so much lawful for any of the patriarchs or other bishops to carry out the sentence against him unless the approval of the concurrence of the Pontiff of the same first see had preceded. But what does this matter, since it is well known that Honorius by no means fell into heresy, but only negatively favoured the same by not using the supreme authority to root out the incipient error, and in this sense, he is said to have been accused in the matter of heresy? Accordingly, in the same Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 1, a formula sent by the same Hadrian had been appended, in which, with no restriction attached, one reads the following: "In view of the fact that the Catholic religion has always been preserved in the apostolic see, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.'' If, on the other hand, the sense of Hadrian is not that Honorius fell into heresy, those who use that statement to argue that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic have no ground to stand upon.'
'We read that the Roman Pontiff has judged the bishops of all the churches, but we do not read of anyone who has judged him. Although, after his death, the Eastern churches anathematised Honorius, nevertheless, it must be recognised that he had been accused of heresy, by reason of which alone inferiors may resist the initiatives of their superiors or freely reject the wicked senses. Although even in that case it would not have been ever so much lawful for any of the patriarchs or other bishops to carry out the sentence against him unless the approval of the concurrence of the Pontiff of the same first see had preceded. But what does this matter, since it is well known that Honorius by no means fell into heresy, but only negatively favoured the same by not using the supreme authority to root out the incipient error, and in this sense, he is said to have been accused in the matter of heresy? Accordingly, in the same Ecumenical Council VIII, Action 1, a formula sent by the same Hadrian had been appended, in which, with no restriction attached, one reads the following: "In view of the fact that the Catholic religion has always been preserved in the apostolic see, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.'' If, on the other hand, the sense of Hadrian is not that Honorius fell into heresy, those who use that statement to argue that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic have no ground to stand upon.'
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Resistance by inferiors against ecclesiastical superiors is permissible in instances of notorious error or unlawful commands. However, the statement from Pope Adrian II does not support resistance against the Roman Pontiff. Instead, the same council teaches:'The Catholic religion has always been preserved in the Apostolic See, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.' (Constantinople IV, Act I)
Now, if the Chair of St Peter always remains unblemished by any error (Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4), then resistance to a true pope would be both unnecessary and unjustified.The instinct to resist arises when Catholics hear the Vicar of Christ promoting error. Yet such a situation is theologically impossible if the occupant is a real pope.Therefore, if resistance is necessary, it is because the man in question does not possess the papal office. This alone preserves the dogma of papal indefectibility. Such is the position known as sedevacantism, which avoids the dangers of heresy and schism.
Resistance by inferiors against ecclesiastical superiors is permissible in instances of notorious error or unlawful commands. However, the statement from Pope Adrian II does not support resistance against the Roman Pontiff. Instead, the same council teaches:
'The Catholic religion has always been preserved in the Apostolic See, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed.' (Constantinople IV, Act I)
Make the most of your spiritual life with the CATHOLIC DEVOTIONAL GUIDE 2025
What's included:
🔎SEE ALSO:
✅HOW TO OBTAIN PERFECT CONTRITION?
✅ON APOSTASY FROM THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN OVERVIEW
✅''ALL RELIGIONS ARE A PATH TO REACH GOD''- A REVIEW OF 'POPE' FRANCIS' LATEST HERESIES
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment