[Historical Review] The Limits of Papal Authority and the Fate of a Heretical pope: An exclusive interview with +Bishop Athanasius Schneider (2nd Look)

Pope Vigilius

In an exclusive interview with Lifesitenews , Bishop +Athanasius Schneider elaborated on his essay which is one of the most exhaustive pieces written to the question of a heretical Pope in our modern day. I will be honing in one particular comment made in this interview, which was teased out more fully in the essay, and then comment on it with the historical record in view.

[Review] +Athanasius Schneider: On the question of a heretical pope

Source: OnePeterFive

Rorate Caeli published a guest article from  Bishop +Athanasius Schneider on the question of what to do in the case of an explicit heretical Pope. Herein is my review of it.

Where Peter Is…..Not

WherePeterIs has published another article which attempts to argue that all Papal teaching, even non-definitive Papal teaching (i.e. any exercise of the Magisterium of the Pope) is 100% infallibly protected from all error. You can read it here.

In fact, we have at least one historical scenario, completely ratified by Pope St. Leo II, where the opposite is proven. At the 6th Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople (681), the deposed Monothelite Macarius of Antioch had dug up the 2 letters of Honorius, Pope of Rome, which were written to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius. The Council read aloud these 2 letters (they were obviously not ex-cathedra), and proceeded to anathematize Honorius as a heretic alongside Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Pharan, Theodore, et al.

What to Think of “Saint” John Paul II in light of Assisi 1986

St. John Paul II

 

A reader, in consequence to reading my last article on Assisi 1986, made the following comment to me (see italic below), and I responded in four points further below.

“I get that Honorius was a heretic, and was still the Pope, and that doesn’t break Catholicism. But Honorious was also condemned as a heretic. What if he had been canonized as a saint instead? What would you make of that?

John Paul II was *manifestly* heterodox by the standards of Pre Vatican II Catholicism. Pius X and Pius XI would have totally considered him a modernist for interfaith worship. You can’t for a second convince me that isn’t the case.

And yet, Francis has *canonized him as a saint*. And not just him, but John XXIII and Paul VI as well.

The ‘trads way out’ here seems to be, in essence, ‘Well, but canonizations aren’t infallible, or even if they are, they only mean a person is in heaven and a person can do all kinds of horrible things and still be in heaven.’  Yet Pius XI taught that saints are ‘an example for every class and profession.’

How has the ordinary magisterium not basically rubber stamped error at this point, by canonizing all the popes of Post Vatican II?”