Catholic Duty Under Heretical Popes

1. Duty of Catholics under a Heretical Pope
The Right and Duty to Resista Pope
The Popes,Saints, Fathers, Doctors and approved theologians of the
Roman Catholic Church have told us through the ages that a pope can be
a heretic against the Roman Catholic faith and attempt to destroythe
Church through inappropriate policies.Such a pope is to be disobeyed and
resisted as a matter of duty.
St. Peter’s instruction
The first pope St. Peter († 67) gave us the general principle of
disobedienceto, and resistance of, corrupt hierarchies and their commands
when he was forbiddento preach Christ by the apostate Jews. When there
is a conflict betweenthe will of a religious superiorand God,we are to obey
God.

2. “But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obeyGod, rather
than men.” (Acts 5:29)
The Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P († 1274)used this incident as an
indication that all superiors are to be disobeyed should their commands be
against the Will of God.
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimesthe
things commanded by a superior are against God.Therefore,superiors are
not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae,IIa IIae,Q. 104, A. 5)
The theologian Juan Cardinal De TorquemadaO.P. († 1468)expressly
related that Bible passage to the duty to resist a wayward pontiff.
“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at
times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be
simply obedientto him in all things, that does not show that he must not be
obeyed by all when his commands are good.To know in what cases he is
to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles:'One
ought to obeyGod rather than man'; therefore,were the Pope to command
anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the
Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to

3. be obeyed,but in such commands,to be passed over.” (Summa de
Ecclesia)
So, “superiors are not to be obeyed in all things”; a “pope canerr at times,
and command things which must not be done” and “we are not to be simply
obedientto him in all things.” A pope can command “against Holy Scripture,
or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of
the natural or divine law” and then “he ought not to be obeyed.”
St. Paul’s example
Pope St. Peter I himself was publicly resisted to his face by St. Paul
because he endangered the truth of the Gospel.
“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)

4. The Fathers of the Church explained that the incident shows us the
correctness of resisting wayward ecclesiastics,even popes.The great
Scripture commentatorCornelius a Lapide († 1637)wrote as follows:
“Superiors may be admonished by their subordinates in all humility and
charity so that truth may be defended:this is the basis (Galatians 2, 11) on
which St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and many others
who are quoted supportthis opinion. They teach quite unequivocally that
St. Peter, although superior in authority to St. Paul, was admonished by
him. St. Gregory rightly states that, “Peterremained silent so that, being
first in the hierarchy of the Apostles,he might equally be first in humility.”
St. Augustine writes, “By showing that superiors admit that they may be
rebuked by their subordinates,St. Peter gave posterity an example of
saintliness more noteworthy than that given by St. Paul, although the latter
showed, nonetheless,that it is possible forsubordinates to have the
boldness to resist their superiors without fear, when in all charity they
speak out in the defence of truth.”“ (Commentary Ad Gal., II,11.)
So, the Doctor St. Augustine told us that we should “boldly” resist
superiors,including the Pope,“without fear”, when we are defending the
Faith.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Scripture passage shows that a pope
who errs from the Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of
the danger which exists for the Faithful to be corrupted and led into error.

5. “There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be
questioned,even publicly, by their subjects.Thus, St. Paul, who was a
subjectof St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent
danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine
puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who
govern so that if sometimes theystray from the right way, they will not
reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.”
(Summa Theologiae,IIaIIae, Q. 33, A. 4)
He also commentedon it as follows:
“The reprehensionwas just and useful, and the reason for it was not light:
there was a danger for the preservation of Gospeltruth. […] The way it took
place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St.
Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter, 'before everyone,'since the
simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone.”
(Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14 (Taurini/ Rome:Marietti,
1953),lec. III,nn. 83f.)

6. That is how a heretical pope and his errors are to be resisted:“boldly”,
“without fear”,“publicly” and “before everyone”,because he is a “danger to
everyone”.That is the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
The instruction of the popes
Various popes have also told us that popes can err from the Faith and
should then be resisted.
Pope Innocent III († 1216)stated that a pope can “wither away into heresy”
and “not believe” the Faith.
“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 fornothing but to be
cast out and trampled under footby men.’” (Sermo 4)

7. Pope Adrian VI († 1523)stated that “it is beyond question” that a pope can
“err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees.He
also stated “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”.
“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).”
(Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus,
1908).*
(* According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia,this work was published in
1512 from the notes of his student and without his supervision, but as it
saw “many editions” it would appear that the pope did not repudiate the
passage as not his own, in a work attributed to him.)
Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878)recognised the danger that a future pope
would be a heretic and “teach contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he
instructed, “do not follow him.”

8. “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not
follow him.” (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Pope Adrian II († 872) admitted that papal heresy “renders lawful the
resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejectionof the
latter's pernicious teachings.”
“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 subjectof 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 offencewhich renders lawful the resistance of
subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter's pernicious
teachings”.
However, I must disagree with Pope Adrian when he said that heresy was
the only offence that justified resistance:the Saints and Doctors have
informed us otherwise, as we shall see.

9. Further, Pope Honorius I († 638) was not merely “accused of heresy” or
“anathematised by the Eastern Churches”:he was anathematised as a
heretic by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople, whose Acts were
confirmed by Pope Leo II († 683).
“We foresawthat, togetherwith them, also Honorius, before Pope of Old
Rome,is cast out of the Holy Catholic Church of God and anathematized,
for we have found by his writings sent to [the heretic] Sergius, that he
followed the thinking of the latter in everything, and continued his impious
principles.[...] To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic,
anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
So we see that popes have told us that a pope can “wither away into
heresy” and “not believe” the Faith; that “it is beyond question” that a pope
can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees;
that “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”;that a pope may be a heretic
and “teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, in which case we are to
follow the instruction “do not follow him”; and that papal heresy “renders
lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors,and their rejection
of the latter's pernicious teachings.”
The teaching of the saints and theologians

10. The Saints and theologians have told us the same thing through the ages:
we must not obey but rather resistwayward pontiffs and their corrupt
hierarchies.
The first Doctorof the Church, St. Athanasius († 373),told us that
“Catholics faithful to Tradition” can be “reducedto a handful”. He wrote
during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacydefectedto Arianism
and Pope Liberius († 366)went into heresy, signed a heretical Arian creed
and invalidly excommunicated St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops
of the East.
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the
ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Catholics)
St. Vincent of Lerins († 445) is the Father of the Church most associated
with the defenceof unchanging doctrinal tradition. It is the subjectof his
main treatise, the Commonitory. He foresaw that if the whole Church
should go into heresy we must keep to the traditional Faith handed down
from the Fathers.

11. “What then should a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches
itself from communion of the universal Faith? What choice can he make if
some new contagion attempts to poison,no longer a small part of the
Church, but the whole Church at once? Then his great concernwill be to
attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying
novelty.” (Commonitory)
A general corruption of the hierarchy has beenforeseenand has happened
before and the Saints have told us how we are to respond:we are to keep
to the traditional, true Catholic Faith which has been handed down from the
Fathers and to rejectthe “lying novelties” of the pope and the hierarchy.
The theologian Sylvester Prieras, O.P. († 1523)discussed the resistance of
a corrupt pope at some length. He asked, “What should be done in cases
where the pope destroys the Church by his evil actions?” and “What should
be done if the pope wishes unreasonably to abolish the laws of church or
state?” His answer was as follows:
“He would certainly be in sin, and it would be unlawful to allow him to act in
such a fashion, and likewise to obey him in matters which are evil; on the
contrary, there is a duty to oppose him while administering a courteous
rebuke.

12. “Thus, were he to wish to distribute the Church's wealth, or Peter's
Patrimony among his own relatives; were he to wish to destroythe church
or to commitan act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to prevent
him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist him. The reason
being that he does not possess powerin orderto destroy, and thus it
follows that if he is so doing it is lawful to oppose him.”
“It is clear from the preceding that, if the pope by his commands,orders or
by his actions is destroying the church, he may be resisted and the
fulfilment of his commands prevented.The right of open resistance to
prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.” (Dialogus de
Potestate Papae)
It would be “unlawful to allow him to act in such a fashion”, without any
resistance,and “likewise to obey him.” There is “a duty to prevent him, and
likewise an obligation to oppose him and resisthim.” As he has papal
power only to build up the Church and not to destroyit, it is “lawful to
opposehim.” He is to be “resistedand the fulfilment of his commands
prevented.” “Openresistance” is a right and a duty.
The theologian Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan O.P. († 1534)
declared:“It is imperative to resista pope who is openly destroying the
Church.” (De Comparata Auctoritate Papae et Concilio). Such a pope must

13. be resisted,his policies opposedand prevented and true Catholic Faith and
practice maintained. Resistance must be established and advanced.
The canonist and theologian, Fr. Francisco de Victoria, O.P. († 1546)told
us the same.
“According to natural law, violence may lawfully be opposedby violence.
Now, through the acts permitted and the orders of the kind under
discussion,the Pope does commitviolence,because he is acting contrary
to what is lawful. It therefore follows that it is lawful to oppose him publicly.
Cajetan draws attention to the fact that this should not be interpreted as
meaning that anybody whosoevercan judge the Pope,or assume authority
over him, but rather that it is lawful to defend oneself even against him.
Every person,in fact, has the right to oppose an unjust action in orderto
prevent, if he is able, its being carried out, and thus he defendshimself.”
(Obras, pp. 486-7)
All of the Faithful have the right to oppose the actions of a corrupt pope and
to try to prevent his harmful policies from being carried out. It is “lawful to
opposehim publicly.”
The theologian, Francisco Suarez S.J. († 1617),said likewise.

14. “If the pope gives an order contrary to right customs,he should not be
obeyed;if he attempts to do something manifestly opposedto justice and
the commongood,it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force,by
force he can be repelled,with a moderationappropriate to a just defence.”
(De Fide, Disp. X, Sec.VI, N. 16)
The Doctor of the Church, St. RobertBellarmine, S.J. († 1621),wrote a
treatise on the Papacy which was used as a basis for the definition of the
limits of papal infallibility which was made at Vatican I. He wrote as follows:
“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful
to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all,
who attempts to destroythe Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by
not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” (De
Romano Pontifice,Lib. II, Ch. 29)
A pope “who attempts to destroythe Church” is not to be obeyed but “it is
lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from
being executed.”

15. Council Vatican I (1870) defined that a pope has no power or right to come
out with new doctrines or to change the Faith which has been handed down
from the Apostles butonly to maintain and preach it.
“Forthe Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that
they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by
His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the
revelation or Depositof Faith transmitted by the Apostles.” (Pastor
Aeternus, cap. 4)
A pope has the right to do nothing but to maintain the true Catholic Faith,
exactly as it has been received.If he attempts to do otherwise, he is to be
denounced and opposed along with all the doctrinal innovations he
attempts to impose on the Faithful.
Summary and recap of perennial teaching
We have seen that tradition instructs us that the global episcopate can fall
away from the Faith and that true Catholics can be reduced to a handful.

16. Popes can defectfrom the Faith and “teach” heresy in their decrees.They
can destroy the Church with their acts. Then we must not obey but must
openly resist the pope and the hierarchy and try to stop their policies from
being implemented.
To recap:
Pope St. Peter I instructed us that we must obey God rather than men
when there is a conflictbetween the two. The Doctors and theologians of
the Church emphasisedthis by telling us “superiors are not to be obeyed in
all things”; a “pope can err at times, and command things which must not
be done”;and “we are not to be simply obedientto him in all things.” A
pope can command “against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the
truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law”, and
then “he ought not to be obeyed.”
Further, St. Paul publicly resisted Pope St. Peter to his face because he
was endangering the Faith. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church
emphasised that we should “boldly” resistsuperiors,including the Pope,
“without fear”,when we are defending the Faith; a pope who errs from the
Faith must be resisted openly and publicly because of the danger which
exists for the Faithful to be corrupted and led into error.

17. Popes have told us that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not
believe” the Faith; that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in
matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees;and that
“many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”;that a pope may be a heretic and
“teach […] contrary to the Catholic Faith”, in which case we are to follow
the instruction, “do not follow him”; and that papal heresy “renders lawful
the resistance of subordinates to their superiors,and their rejectionof the
latter's pernicious teachings.”
And finally, we have seen that the Saints and approved theologians
through the ages have told us that it can happen that “some new contagion
attempts to poison,no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole
Church at once”,and it can come to pass that “Catholics faithful to Tradition
are reduced to a handful”. Should this happen the great concern of each
“will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by
any lying novelty” – and it is the “Catholics faithful to tradition” who “are the
ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” Further, a pope can
“destroythe Church through his evil actions” and then “it would be unlawful
to allow him to act in such a fashion”;“on the contrary, there is a duty to
opposehim”; there “would be a duty to prevent him, and likewise an
obligation to opposehim and resist him”; “he may be resisted and the
fulfilment of his commands prevented” with “openresistance”.Again, “it is
lawful to opposehim publicly”; “every person, in fact, has the right to
opposean unjust action in order to prevent, if he is able, its being carried
out.” Indeed,“it is imperative to resista pope who is openly destroying the
Church.” He “should not be obeyed” and it is “lawful to resisthim” if he acts
contrary to justice and the commongood.A pope has no right to teach
novelty. It is “lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and
preventing his will from being executed” should he destroy the Church.