Papal Maximalism, Papal Minimalism, or Via Mediális?

[Reader Antonius]

Peace. Δόξα Ιησού Χριστό!, שלום עליכם! Laudétur Iesus Christus!

What follows is a genuine, sincere attempt on my part – both for my own benefit, but hopefully also for other Catholic Christians, East or West – to discuss the nuances of Catholic dogma & doctrine regarding the issues surrounding the Pope of Old Rome, Successor of St. Peter, Supreme & Ecumenical Pontiff, and Servant of the servants of God.

Recently, I proposed to the best of my ability a view of what might be described as Papal maximalism (for lack of a better term). I would define it as the following:

To quote St. Robert Bellarmine to start off:

“It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." (c.f., Book IV, Chapter VI” [in "On the Roman Pontiff"].

I would also add the following clarifications, at least from my view and the Papal maximalists I know:

I. The Pope's power is limited by natural law & Divine Law in general. As Vatican I noted, the Pope is not the master nor creator of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. Quite the contrary, the Pope serves & guards Divine Revelation!
II. A Pope may err out of simple ignorance of fact. Even Ecumenical Councils can err this way too.
III. A Pope could teach heresy in his capacity as a private theologian or in writings not intended as authentic Magisterium.
IV. A Pope may hold privately to material heresy, but he can't formally, nor bind the Church to a heretical or immoral proposition in his ordinary Magisterium.
V. In general, the Pope is indefectible (although not necessarily infallible) in his ordinary Magisterium, and not simply when speaking ex cathedra.

Now, I am far less versed in a Papal minimalist position, but I will try to do justice to it as best I may (others please feel free to correct me or add more):

Here too I think quoting St. Robert Bellarmine is a good way to start:

"n a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of all Catholics." (c.f., Ibid. Book IV, Chapter II).

Thus, we might list some clarifying points also:

I. As with the maximalists, this point is the same as above; albeit perhaps stressed more.
II. It is possible for a Pope to be both a material heretic, but also a formal one as well. The latter case would result in automatically losing Papal office.
III. The above (II) only applies to the ordinary Magisterium which, while always helped by God, nevertheless isn't infallible as it would be if ex cathedra.
IV. There is a kind of real distinction between the Indefectibility of the Church & the Papacy.
V. There is likewise a distinction between the See of St. Peter as such and the Pope as office-bearer.
VI. The Indefectibility of the Church is not compromised by a formally heretical Pope.

I'd like to provide an explanation of a Via Mediális ("middle way") – that is, a sort of "in-between" that mixes orthodox positions from both the above into a harmonious whole of some kind. Unfortunately, I am not erudite nor (possibly, in all honesty) intelligent enough to lay out what that may look like. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Magisterial statements of recent decades suggest that the Church aligns more with a Via Mediális of some kind; yet she hasn't fully clarified it (as far as I know). So, defining that is beyond me.

Thus, I would deeply appreciate a sharing of opinions, articles, Magisterial documents, etc. on this topic of Papal authority & power. While I probably hold to a "maximalist" position, I am growing suspicious of it. At the same time, I don't know that I can accept a Pope being a formal heretic. Hence, I am inclined to some sort of Via Mediális; but, as I said, I'm not entirely sure what that looks like (and, if possible, I'd like to learn what it might be).

Lastly, this is not just important to me on a merely personal level. I am an instituted Lector in the Latin Church of Rome, and I also serve as an ordained Reader (kind of an assistant from the West) in a Melkite Greek Catholic parish. Part of the role of the Lector/Reader is to teach basic catechesis & nurture the faith of God's People. As it is written in the Roman Pontifical (translation mine):

"[Y]ou shall assume a distinctive office among the People of God, dedicated to the service of the Faith, firmly rooted in the Word of God. In the liturgical assembly, you shall proclaim the Divine Word, nurturing the faith of both young and old, guiding them in the dignified reception of the Sacraments, and proclaiming the tidings of salvation to those as yet unenlightened." [Pontificale Romanum, Institutio Lectorum].

Given that the pontificate of Pope Francis has created a great deal of confusion, and given this is a topic that I require more learning in order to help in basic catechesis & nurturing faith (OCIA/Catechumenate/Parish Teaching), I am making this post hoping those more erudite on the topic than I can help me – as well as others – better understand. As an autodidact, I'd prefer to try to find an answer by my own study, but I have many duties in two parishes, and must study Scripture assiduously each day (if I can). I'm also in training to become a Roman Rite "Master of Ceremonies"! Hence, I'm hoping that this thread can open avenues to new areas of study or general knowledge for all. I have also added a poll, since these are sometimes useful for gathering information. I will try to make it anonymous as I can, as I have no interest in delving into others' views unless they wish to share.

Of course, I hope the very same knowledge may be gained for anyone who reads this thread. To anyone and everyone I humbly offer my Lector's blessing, which I have composed from ancient sources, mainly the "Apostolic Tradition" of St. Hippolytus. It is an invocative, lay blessing; thus not constitutive as a blessing of the ordained. Yet, I offer this very feeble blessing with a spirit of charity & hope it may help someone, as well as bless this thread in some way.

"O Almighty & Eternal God, You who are abounding in mercy and compassion, who has made manifest the order of the world by Your works therein, and keep safe the number of Your chosen, now also look down upon me, Your unprofitable servant, who is entrusted by the Holy Catholic Church to read Your Holy Scriptures to Your People, and grant to me Your prophetic Spirit now as I carry out my office. By the living oracles of Your Sacred Books, I reverently implore Your grace be upon Your beloved servants & handmaids here on OBOB. I humbly invoke Your blessings, salvation, and healing to descend upon them. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son (+), and of the Holy Spirit. This we beseech You, through Christ our Lord – the Eternal Word – with whom glory and worship be to You and to the Holy Spirit, One God, now and always, and unto ages of ages. Amen."​

So without further ado, let us learn together!

 

[zippy2006]

Good OP.

I want to take some time away from CF so I don't intend to contribute much to this thread, but I should say that "papal maximalism" and "papal minimalism" have a meaning deriving from Vatican I that is somewhat obscured in this thread. Historically these terms refer to the prominence acceded to the Pope in the doctrinal and governmental life of the Church. You are using them in a different sense, namely to denote how bad a pope can really get, or what degree of sin against the faith God would permit in a pope. In the Vatican I sense I am neither minimalist nor maximalist. In this latter sense of "how bad it could get," I haven't given it a great deal of thought.

The latter case would result in automatically losing Papal office.

According to Bellarmine but not Cajetan. See: Opinion IV of the relevant section of Bellarmine's De Romano Pontifice (link).

 

[zippy2006]

I will say that Scott Smith may be someone who is a good candidate for a via media. He seems to defend Francis while simultaneously opposing illogical defenses of Francis. Or in other words, he is very careful about the manner in which he defends the papacy.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Peace. Δόξα Ιησού Χριστό!, שלום עליכם! Laudétur Iesus Christus!

I was surprised this didn't get more takers, especially since so many OBOB members who have shared on the topic would, I suspect, reject any kind of Papal maximalism.

Regardless, if this is thread is fated to be buried like so many others, I figured I take the chance to lay out where I am at in my own personal thoughts so far; especially since my original "certainty" in one particular interpretation was broken. To wit:

Providentially, I went to my mother's church to sing with her; a small Southern Baptist church where I first personally encountered Christ. The Pastor – in an excellent sermon – preached about Luke 22:31-32. Of course, as every Catholic, East & West, knows: this is a *central* text on Papal Infallibility cited at Vatican I. That sermon, combined with my own wrestling with the concept of a formally heretical Pope, led to me an epiphany of sorts.

What would be the point of God allowing a Pope of Rome, the Supreme & Ecumenical Pontiff, to be a formal heretic?

Who benefits? Who suffers? What good is accomplished?

To my weak intellect, it makes no sense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church – basing itself on Divine Revelation & Christ's own command – states that:

"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.' 'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.'" (CCC 882).

What's more, this description of the Papacy is hardly exhaustive, nor even that strong of an affirmation compared to other authoritative texts!!

The Papacy – the Bishopric of Rome, which continues the role of St. Peter as Chief of the Apostles until Christ returns – is *the* center of unity for the Church, so much so that being in full communion with her which is a mark of being fully within Church. It's also a final ecclesiastical court of appeals who's decisions, once made, cannot be overturned except by a successor. Moreover, as Vatican I (following previous doctrine from the Patristic era) taught that, among other things:

The Holy See of Rome, in the person of the Bishop of that See, has full jurisdiction in every part of the Church (East & West); universal pastoral care over all Christians; sole ratifier of Ecumenical Councils, for we cannot be certain which councils or teachings thereof are ecumenical until he confirms them; full power to make decisions alone if needed without the consent of the bishops; episcopal authority as a "Universal Bishop" as though the entire Church were his Diocese; and he may use that same authority *immediately* without being hindered by anything. The only true limits to Papal authority are to follow, protect, & preserve Divine Revelation in Scripture & Tradition, and give correct interpretations thereof (the latter being assisted by the Holy Spirit Himself).

Why would Catholics, East & West, as we believe & affirm this immensely important institution, but then turn around and claim it can fall into formal heresy when not teaching *ex cathedra* (which to call "rare" is a massive understatement!).

That...that doesn't make sense. It seems profoundly counterintuitive & incoherent. And it gets worse on that front.

If it's possible for a formal heretic to occupy the Throne of St. Peter, the faithful & ordained do not benefit from such a possibility in any readibly visible way. Ad contra: they are harmed greatly by it! The one who gains most from such a scenario is the *Enemy.* And that's exactly what Jesus is saying in Luke 22:31-32: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat..." It is the Devil that benefits from the possibility of a formally heretical Pope! To *great* extent, to boot!

Plus, the topic of a heretical Pope comes up at interesting junctures, doesn't it? Timing can often tell us many things otherwise obscured. Issues with the East over Papal authority; the rise of Protestantism; Vatican I; and (perhaps most of all) Vatican II. Finally, in our day, with Pope Francis. It's clear the notion itself is not worth doctrinal consideraton (much less development) at all until someone disagrees with the Pope enough to cause a problem. Yet, when Catholic Orthodoxy triumphs, the Pope is praised & lauded (we see it again and again in history).

A fourth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine on this issue is quoted by the "Relatio" of Bishop +Gasser at Vatican I thusly: "It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith." This is the only cited quote of St. Bellarmine in the Relatio (cited as Book IV, Ch. VI). As +Gasser goes on, he distinguishes between four propositions of St. Bellarmine in the same book a bit earlier. The first two +Gasser condemns, and the last (the 4th) he states is "common and certain opinion" (quoting St. Bellarmine). Yet, +Gasser doesn't cite it *this*, he simply seems to allude to it. There's no quoting of it however. So, most assume, not unreasonably, that +Gasser is talking about Book IV, Chapter II of St. Bellarmine because of the phrase: "common and certain opinion." Now, this allusion reads:

"IV. The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of all Catholics."

Of course, this is a goldmine for those who would argue that, despite all the power & the crucial role the Pope plays in the unity of the Church, he can himself be a formal heretic. Interestingly, St. Bellarmine does not actually say that, he uses it rhetorically rather to back up his next point that he can't bind the Church to heresy. Still, those who follow this line of though hold that the Pope can theoretically teach all kinds of errors, even when teaching as Supreme Pontiff, and the only limit is when he speaks "ex cathedra" (which, to date since Vatican I, has happened *once*!). The second one was "grandfathered" into Vatican I's teaching. So...only two moments in all of Papal teaching have been *certainly* free from error.

This...this is weak tea! What's the point of such a vast limitation? You'd have to have either "ex cathedra" statements on far more teachings & instances, as well as more Ecumenical Councils held. That is, if you wanted to the full assurance that you aren't being led astray at any given moment, and that you don't have to become like a great Protestant divine, conversant with the sources of Divine Revelation & 2,000 years of doctrinal interpretation thereof!

Moreover, such a limitation doesn't quite match up with the rest of Pastor Aeternus, nor even +Gasser's Relatio. In the latter, +Gasser states:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. [...] To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in Book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."

So, here we have the issue in quotation. Pighius, and other extreme doctrines, are rebuked, while it *appears* +Gasser is suggesting Book IV, Ch. II of St. Bellarmine as the focal point.

Yet, here we enter a new arena, because this "fourth opinion" (of B. IV, Ch. II) has a context of its own. Here also, we begin to see a distinction in the theology being discussed: infallibility (teachings without error that are irreformable) & indefectibility (teachings without error that are reformable). It's a small distinction, easily overlooked, yet, St. Bellarmine was well aware of it. For example, St. Bellarmine claims that even Catholics and heretics agree on two things: First, that a Pope can err when teaching authoritatively on issues of simple facts (e.g., historical, scientific, etc.) unrelated to faith & morals, just as Ecumenical Councils can. Second, that the Pope can err as a private teacher (distinct from his authoritative teaching) in faith & morals simply out of ignorance.

Moreover, St. Bellarmine's view of Pighius doctrine as "extreme" is based not so much on the whole, but on a point of disagreement. For their positions are remarkably close; St. Bellarmine even calling them "pious." Pighius maintained that a Pope could never teach heresy even in his capacity as a private theologian. St. Bellarmine however knew that was absurd, given the precedence of Pope John XXII, who had – in private sermons & theological disputes – held, temporarily (he recanted later) that the souls of the saved do not see the Beatific Vision until after the Last Day. St. Bellarmine refutes the idea that John XXII's teaching is heretical on two grounds: Firstly, the doctrine had yet to be defined itself, even if it was the common opinion. Secondly, and more importantly, St. Bellarmine notes that there was no attempt by John XXII to extend this view to the whole Church in his teaching role as Pope. He was manifestly offering his own theological opinions for discussion. But this precedent is what makes St. Bellarmine simply call Pighius' opinion "extreme."

This is part of what leads to the fourth opinion +Gasser cites that, whether a Pope be a heretic or not, he cannot define heresy that binds on the Church. Yet, here I think many readers are understandably tripped up by: "define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church."

This is conflated with the definition of Papal Infallibility as defined at Vatican I. Yet, if we use St. Bellarmine's fourth opinion in this manner, we fall into the common charge by Protestant polemicists that the Church is arguing in a circle (Papal Infallibility is true because it has been defined by Papal Infallibility). This will not do. Nor was St. Bellarmine ignorant of this.

Instead, he defends the fourth opinion with a subset of four more points – and each one of these rests not on "infallible definitions," but rather on the Church as an indefectible institution. The fourth of these is what +Gasser quotes in the Relatio: "It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as 'Pope' can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith." Let's parse that a bit: This is an explanation of the above idea that, whether the Pope be a heretic or not, he cannot bind the Church to error. The key here is the phrase: "as Pope." That is, "as Pope," the Supreme Pontiff can not only not err, but also cannot be a heretic as a person formally ("pertinaciously believing" being clarifying factor here). Note that this "fourth opinion" is marshalled in defense of the "fourth opinion" of Book IV, Ch. II – which so many Sedefectivists seize upon as proof that a Pope can be a formal heretic.

Pighius doctrine was "extreme" not because he didn't limit "freedom from error" in Papal teaching to authoritative, public teaching. Rather, it was "extreme" because Pighius held that a Pope couldn't err even as a private theologian (i.e., not just "as Pope"), and then beyond that too. St. Bellarmine and Vatican I (as related through the Relatio) disagreed, and that is why Pighius' notion must be rejected for the extreme Hyperpapalism that it is. The Pope is not a divine oracle. He only has the capacity of indefectibility when teaching authoritatively on faith & morals; and even here, as later doctrinal development will clarify, there are levels to this teaching that require variations of reception by the faithful. Moreover, he only has extraordinary infallibility as Pope when teaching ex cathedra as defined by Vatican I in P.A. Ch. IV:IX, or in Ecumenical Councils as presider thereof.

So, it *seems* as though +Gasser agrees that it is St. Robert Bellarmine's nuanced position (Book IV, Ch. II; supported by what +Gasser cites directly in Book IV, Ch. VI) over Pighius. Indeed, in Book IV, Ch. III, St. Bellarmine goes so far as to argue that the Pope (as an office indistinguishable from the person of St. Peter & his successors; a point defined by Vatican I with an anathema: c.f., P.A., Ch. II, no. V) as St. Peter: "[C]ould never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith." This claim St. Bellarmine bases on – you guessed it! – Luke 22:31-32.

Continued below...

 

[Reader Antonius]

Continued below...

Yet, for all the valuable hermeneutical qualities that +Gasser brings to "Pastor Aeternus," it is the latter that's the Church's teaching, not +Gasser. It is De Fide that Ecumenical Councils. insofar, as their teachings (whole or in part) are confirmed by St. Peter's Successor, are *infallible* in faith & morals.

With that in mind, Pastor Aeternus' discussion of the Papal Magisterium in Ch. IV – in *eight* full points before the extraordinary definition of Papal Infallibility itself – *heavily* implies (at the least!) a more general freedom from "all error." Particularly we may cite:

No. II, which calls the Holy See the "whole and true strength of the Christian religion"; No. III, which explains why the Holy See is the last court of appeals because she is "in that place above all where the faith can know no failing"; No. VI, which actually states openly: "[The] See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the Divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples (Lk. 22:31-32)"; No. VII, which states: "This gift of truth and *never-failing faith* was therefore Divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See," so that the faithful may be kept from false doctrine.

It is only *after* all of these assertions that the extraordinary definition is made.

On these grounds alone, even without +Gasser's attempt to calm the Gallicans of his day, Pastor Aeternus doesn't shrink to what sounds like a "limited" position. Not to me. Many important claims are made without being *directly* tied-in with the dogmatic definition in No. IX. Why? If the goal of Pastor Aeternus was to limit Papal infallibility (and general lack of error in teaching) to ex cathedra definitions, why make such sweeping claims of "never-failing" faith, "perfect security of the Christian religion," "where the faith can know no failing," and "always remains unblemished by any error."?

Is this just rhetorical flourish? A dramatic lead up to No. IX? Statements having no weight because, despite being pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council, are not "extraordinarily defined" (and even here there is disagreement on whether Ecumenical Councils even require such a distinction between ordinary & extraordinary!)?

Indeed, I suspect the real difficulties for those who would wish to limit Papal indefectibility to Papal infallibility alone via ex cathedra statements have to first deal with Pastor Aeternus *itself,* not the Relatio. Moreover, why would one want to limit Papal indefectibility from the True Faith to Papal Infallibility alone? Pursuit of great clarity? Development of doctrine?

No. It is evident from the pontificate of Pope Francis alone that the person seeking the limitation is either convinced the Pope can teach heresy; or has already done so; or perhaps may do so soon; etc. By concluding that heresy is present in authoritative Papal teaching, one *must* move to strictly limit the Pope's "never-failing" faith to ex cathedra only. Moreover, this then allows room for "faithful resistance," "loyal dissent," & a host of other criticisms of the Pope with whom one may disagree,

Furthermore, we as Catholics also know that not all teaching (by far) is extraordinary. The "ordinary & universal Magisterium" is infallible too (e.g., abortion is evil, priesthood is reserved to men, contraception is evil, etc.). We also know that this the primary way the Apostolic hierarchy teaches us; including the Pope. But we know that beyond the above, there is a possibility for error (Donum Veritatis made that clear). Here though I wonder if we're talking about two different things; conflating them erroneously as one: "Infallibility" (a charism by which a statement is free from error & therefore irreformable), and "Indefectibility" (the charism given to the Church that she will fundamentally remain as she is until Christ returns).

Moreover, even if we affirm that authentic teachings could contain error...what does that mean? Error is not necessarily heresy, much less obstinate heresy. It could be a prudential error, for example. But what about something like, in his ordinary Magisterium, the Pope teaching such claims as Arianism is the true faith, and himself persisting in that error. Or, likewise, teaching that polyamory is morally permissible...and persisting in that error. What then? What *good* is that to anyone?!?!

So far too, the "lived experience" of believing that a Pope can be a formal heretic is *chaos.* While some go off the edge into Conclavism or Sedevacantism, most argue that authentic Papal teaching can be resisted (i.e. dissented against) just because it has not been taught infallibly. Moreover, they *widely* engage in the dissent that Donum Veritatis *explicitly* denies for Catholics to do! As the document says:

"Public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church is also called 'dissent,' which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above (32).

In fact, D.V. argues the opposite, saying that in the face of deficiencies:

"There should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith (29)."

Have we really seen any of that from those engaging in D.V.'s definition of dissent? Literally. Just one?

And let's say that a Pope *does* (and, tellingly, this has *never* happened in the 2,000+ years of Papal history, as St. Bellarmine notes), with full intention to teach as Pope, something formally heretical and obstinately persists in it....what would we do?

Yeah, yeah; I know all the speculations of Cajetan and St. Bellarmine and more...but those are just that: *speculations.* Since it never has happened, and since there's nothing apparent in the Apostolic Deposit to really clarify this (as far as anyone can see), doesn't that suggest that it might not even be possible? Since we have no mechanism to deal with a formally heretical Pope beyond mere theological opinion, what would we do? Practically? Seriously? Already, opponents of Pope Francis are more divided than a Baptist in a liquor store over what to do! And what good would the possibility of such a thing be?! What would it say about Christ's fidelity or the Holy Spirit's guidance. More chillingly: What would it say about the Church's indefectibility? Why would God give us such an important institution, yet allow it to defect grievously unless it is speaking ex cathedra?

Here is where the "indefectible" aspect comes in most strongly. Yes, most of the Pope's teaching is not *infallible* (i.e., inerrant & irreformable). Got it. Moreover, different teachings of the Magisterium have different *weight.* And this has to be considered. But even in a non-infallible teaching, yet taught as "authoritative Magisterium," we are to "submit with will & intellect." Now...what would happen if the Pope, in his "authoritative Magisterium" (not infallible, of course) declared a very *serious* false teaching on faith and/or morals?

Can we honestly say with a straight face that, since he wasn't speaking ex cathedra, the Catholic Church hasn't defected? That since it wasn't in an Ecumenical Council, the Catholic Church hasn't defected? Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, among many others, would have quite a laugh at us if we claimed that!

For the definition of the doctrine of Church's Indefectibility, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (OCE) says:

"Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. [...] It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men."

The OCE also talks about what *would* disprove this:

"It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it into being."

Then the OCE, a post-Vatican I, pre-Vatican II, and anti-Modernist document mind you, says something *very* interesting:

"Only to one particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32)."

So we're right back where we started! Luke 22:31-32. For my part, I cannot see how having Popes formally holding & teaching heresy does the Church any good, nor demonstrates the loving Providence of God. And I'm not alone. St. Robert Bellarmine agreed:

"It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as 'Pope' can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith. It is proved:

I.) Because it seems to require the sweet disposition of the Providence of God. For, the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the Truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: 'I have prayed for you [Peter], that your faith shall not fail,' that is, that at least the preaching of the True Faith shall not fail in Your See. How, I ask, will a heretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the True Faith?

II). It is proved ab eventu. For to this point no [Pontiff] has been a heretic, or certainly it cannot be proven that any of them were heretics; therefore it is a sign that such a thing cannot be."

I'm sorry but I'm siding with St. Robert Bellarmine on this, as well as the strong statements of Vatican I, Ch. IV:VI-VII. Now, I'm not some Hyperpapalist, where everything Pope breathes is a Divine Oracle!!! Rather there are nuances, as I wrote above:

I. The Pope's power is limited by natural law & Divine Law in general. As Vatican I noted, the Pope is not the master nor creator of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. Quite the contrary, the Pope serves & guards Divine Revelation.

II. A Pope may err out of simple ignorance of fact. Even Ecumenical Councils can err this way too.

III. A Pope could teach heresy in his capacity as a private theologian or in writings not intended as authentic Magisterium.

IV. A Pope may hold privately to material heresy, but he can't formally (thus depriving him of his office), nor bind the Church to a heretical or immoral proposition in his ordinary Magisterium.

This is where I stand based on all my studies so far. Added to that is what began this post in the first place: "Why on earth would God allow the center of unity in the Church be a formal heretic without leaving us a truly viable, clear way of dealing with it? What good would that do, and who benefits?

No, God is not cruel. Jesus is Lord of the Church. And the Holy Spirit is her soul. "Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; for His steadfast love endures forever!" (Ps. 118:29 ESV-CE).