Bellarmine St. Robert S.J. 1542-1621. - Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Faith

Contents

Papal Error?

A Defense of Popes Said to have Erred in Faith

St. Robert Bellarmine,S.J.

Doctor of the Church

Translated from theLatin by

Ryan Grant

Mediatrix Press

MMXV

Copyright Notice

ISBN:069256599

Translated from:

De Controversiis Fidei Christianae

Ingolstadt, 1588

Ryan Grant 2015

This work may not be reproduced for commercial purposes in any manner.

INTRODUCTION

T HIS little work is an excerpt from Bellarmine's larger treatise On the Roman Pontiff,book 4, which follows after the assertion of what was already universally taught atthat time, but not completely understood nor decreed by the Church's solemnmagisterium, that the Pope was infallible in his teaching on faith and morals whenteaching the whole Church. These chapters then, being 8-14 of that work, follow totest and prove this claim historically, wherein he posits exculpatory evidence against claimsthat 40 Popes had grievously erred in matters of faith. It should be noted that we haverenumbered these chapters in this work accordingly.

Much as with the doctrine of Papal infallibility itself, St. Robert Bellarmine does notendeavor to show the impeccability of Popes, rather that in matters of faith, where the Popesare actually authoritative, they did not err. Some matters treated here are the objection ofcertain Protestants, while others are even of Catholics who are confused on the decrees orbehavior of these Popes.

A word must be said about the validity of some of the history contained herein. St. RobertBellarmine makes arguments based on historical evidence and testimony. The principles ofhis historiography are not foreign to our own day, the sources closer to the event are morelikely to be correct than those later, agreement of writers makes for a strong witness in thematter and consistency of documents is necessary for determining their truth.

Another vehicle St. Robert uses is text criticism, done at a period when that science wasin its infancy. In this he shows himself rather astute, albeit he was limited to the resources ofhis own time. Scholarship has moved on since the 16th century and removed attributions tovarious authors with it. Some documents he references were held as valid by all men of thattime, but in fact are thought today by scholars of the ancient period to be forgeries, such asthe Pontifical of Pope Damasus which is the basis for the crime of Pope Marcellinus relatedin the first chapter, which likewise is thought today to be a myth by Church historians. Whatis important for us, is that not only did St. Robert Bellarmine believe it, but so also did hiscontemporaries.

There are also some assertions where Bellarmine was not followed by the subsequenttradition, such as his assertion that during the Pontificate of Pope Liberius, he was no longerheld to be Pope and instead Felix II was created Pope in his place. We have preservedBellarmines account in full, regardless of whether one would that something were changedor altered. It is also important that we remember that Bellarmine was a theologian, and whilea very great one, is but a private doctor in those matters where there is no consensus of thewhole tradition, let alone a judgement of the magisterium.

Lastly, as a sort of preamble to the work, it is worth noting that these chapters were usedas a blueprint at Vatican I by the fathers of that Council to further scrutinize these cases andbe sure of the limits and nature of papal authority. Bellarmine thus lays out four basicpropositions; Two of these Catholics must believe with divine faith per the subsequent decreeof Vatican I (which were no less incumbent upon the believer in Bellarmines time, thoughthen they were so by the universal teaching of all theologians), namely that the Pope isinfallible when judging matters of Faith and Morals and defining these as matters that mustbe believed by all the faithful. This particular distinction is important, for the Pope, outside ofthis very narrow category, does not enjoy infallibility, thus in private letters, privateteaching, their acts, behavior, etc., Popes can give scandal, they can give opinions that are infact false, but they cannot teach the whole Church and bind it to believe error.

The next two propositions follow (though they are not laid out in this order in theoriginal): a) that the particular Roman Church can never err; b) that the Pontiff as a particularperson cannot be a heretic. Concerning the first, Bellarmine brings strong arguments fromthe Fathers in regard to the Roman Church. That argument is that the Roman Church assuch, while it may have members that are in error, cannot become apostate because itsBishop is the Pope. This would seem to follow from the eloquent patristic testimony given tothe Roman Church. Then, there the last proposition, which Bellarmine phrases thus:

It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as Pope can the SupremePontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciouslybelieving something false against the faith. This must be born in mind as one of thecriterions Bellarmine is attempting to defend throughout this treatise, and for him it isinseparable from the Popes power in faith and morals, and the indefectibility of the RomanChurch. He continues:

It is proved: 1) because it seems to require the sweet disposition of the providence ofGod. For, the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should alwayspreach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm hisbrethren, and for that reason added: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail, thatis, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne. How, I ask, will aheretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the true faith? Certainly Godcan wrench the confession of the true faith out of the heart of a heretic just as he placed thewords in the mouth of Balaams ass. Still, this will be a great violence, and not in keepingwith the providence of God that sweetly disposes all things.

2) It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly itcannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thingcannot be. (On the Roman Pontiff, book 4, ch. 6.)

Thus we hasten to Bellarmines treatment of the historical cases.

CHAPTER I

On the Errors Which are Falsely Ascribed to the Roman Pontiffs Peter, Linus, Anacletus,Thelesphorus, Victor, Zephyrinus, Urban, Pontian, Cornelius and Marcelinus, who Were not onlyPopes, but even Martyrs.

L ET us now come to individual Popes, whom our adversaries contend have erred. TheFirst is Peter. Nilus of Thessalonika, in his book, On the Primacy of the RomanPontiff, writes that Peter erred not only once but twice concerning faith. Further, heeven supposes that by this argumentation he has proven that the Roman Pontiffscan err in faith. Certainly no Roman Pontiff received greater privileges from Godthan Peter. Moreover, it is clear from Scripture that Peter erred twice, both when he deniedChrist

We respond: When St. Peter denied Christ, he had not yet begun to be the SupremePontiff, for it is certain that Ecclesiastical rule was handed to him by Christ in the last chapterof John, since the Lord said to him after the resurrection: Simon, son of John, feed mysheep. Therefore, that denial of Peter cannot be numbered among errors of the RomanPontiffs. Besides, I add that Peter denied Christ with words, but not truly in his heart: hencePeter did not throw off the confession of faith, nor faith itself, as we showed previously.