Historical Difficulties : The Fallacy of “Heretical Popes”

Various historical incidents are alleged as being incompatible with the supremacy, or at any rate with the infallibility, of the Pope. It is in the first place remarkable that in so long a period, amongst so many Pontiffs, so differently circumstanced, and in such a multitude of their decisions, there should be so few instances of the kind. It would be out of place here to discuss them in any detail, and it must suffice to indicate very briefly the character of the objections and that of the replies, which fuller investigation must be left to corroborate.

 Pope Liberius .

Liberius, it is said, subscribed a heretical creed, and anathematized St. Athanasius, the champion of orthodoxy. Reply, 1. The facts are doubtful. It is not certain that the creed subscribed was actually heretical. It is certain that Liberius did not anathematize Athanasius. At most he withdrew from his communion, as a disturber of the peace of the Church, and communicated with his enemies.

2. He thus acted under terror, when in the hands of the Arian Emperor, and by so doing undoubtedly exhibited shameful and sinful weakness, and caused great scandal. But he never taught the Church heresy. He fell like Peter—though we cannot be sure to what extent ; and when the danger was past he proclaimed the orthodox faith as before.

Pope Vigilius

He was undoubtedly weak and fluctuating with regard to works suspected of heresy, and published a declaration to the effect that he was unwilling to condemn them. But he afterwards changed his mind and did condemn them.

 Pope Honorius

It cannot be denied (although Baronius and others have tried to prove the contrary) that the Sixth General Council (Second of Constantinople, a.d. 681) pronounced “Anathema on Honorius the heretic,” which was approved by the Pope of the time,—Leo II.,—and by subsequent councils. All that is needful is to understand the history.  Sergius of Constantinople broached a new heresy (the Monothelite), but in covert and guarded language. All turned on the precise signification attached to certain philosophical terms which different writers understood differently. Some, however, suspecting the utterances of Sergius as unorthodox, began to agitate against him, whereupon he wrote to Honorius that it was a mere question of words, to which it would be foolish to attach importance. Honorius, not seeing the trend of his system, agreed with him and wrote saying that he saw nothing erroneous. That Honorius misapprehended, not the Catholic doctrine, but Sergius’ meaning is evidenced by the fact that in the same documents in which he expresses himself as above, he lays down the correct doctrine on the very point in question. (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. iv.) Later, however, it became manifest that the teaching of Sergius was heretical, and he was accordingly condemned, at Constantinople, Honorius being coupled with him as culpably neglectful of his duty in not having condemned the heresiarch. But whatever fault he may have committed, he certainly defined nothing:—indeed he expressly disclaimed the idea of any definition. It is moreover probable that he was blameless in the whole transaction, as the crucial words had not then acquired the signification presently attached to them, making their use by Sergius inadmissible. Others, no doubt, had a keener scent than he to detect the beginnings of error, but such acumen is not amongst the gifts which a Pope is required to possess.

(John Gerrard S. J. , A Course of Religious Instruction For Catholic Youth)