UPDATED

The article at LifeSiteNews on Muller’s accusations was taken down, for a number of hours, and then replaced with a new version. The only significant difference, as far as I could see, was the change in the accusation by Cardinal Muller. The old article has Muller quoted as saying Pope Francis “has already uttered plenty of material heresies”. The new version changes this to: “some of Pope Francis’ statements are formulated in such a way that they could be reasonably understood as material heresy, independent of their unclear subjective meaning.” The rest of what Muller says remains the same in both versions of the article.

Here is a link to the old version preserved at Archive.org

The new quote from Cardinal Muller is milder, but still makes essentially the same claim. Muller’s use of the term “reasonably understood as material heresy” is still an accusation, as he puts reason on the side of understanding Francis’ expressions as heresy. Then the phrasing “unclear subjective meaning” seems designed as a rhetorical softening of the claim, but without any real substantial reduction in the accusation. A Pope whose teaching is reasonably understood as material heresy is essentially teaching material heresy, as it is implied that a reasonable person would see it that way. Also, we don’t have the full text of the original interview, so Cardinal Muller may also have said the other, harsher expression. Over all, the new wording is nicer, but not different in its essential elements.

My original post begins here:

An article from LifeSiteNews — “EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Müller says Francis has uttered ‘material heresy’, but is still the Pope” — has been removed after one day. The same report is found at OnePeterFive: Pope Has “Uttered Plenty of Material Heresies”: Former Vatican Doctrinal Head.

OnePeterFive states: “In a new interview with LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Müller, the former head of the Holy Office said that Pope Francis ‘has already uttered plenty of material heresies,’ but that since these are not formal heresies, Pope Francis has not lost his office.”

In reviewing the claims Cardinal Gerhard Muller makes against Pope Francis — in the original LifeSiteNews article and in the OnePeterFive article — it is clear that he is accusing the Roman Pontiff of teaching material heresy and of instituting a discipline which fosters and puts into practice heretical doctrine. Muller implies that Pope Francis has used the Keys of Saint Peter in alleged grave errors on doctrine and discipline. However, Muller also says that Pope Francis would not lose his validity and authority as Pope, unless he also commits formal heresy, by which Muller means a willful teaching of material heresy, contrary to what one understands as truth.

This is not the correct definition of formal heresy. Heretics always think that they are right, and that their ideas are truth, and yet the Church has always condemned them. Arius believed that his heretical (Arian) teachings on the Trinity were truth, and yet he and his ideas were condemned by two Ecumenical Councils.

Material heresy is an accusation against an idea. In material heresy, the idea that is claimed to be religious or moral truth is not merely erroneous, but also contrary to dogma. A dogma is any teaching of the Church which must be believed with divine and catholic faith; such teachings are established as dogma (infallible doctrine) by having been taught via Papal Infallibility, Conciliar Infallibility, or the ordinary universal magisterium. Material heresy is any idea, claim, or teaching that rejects, contradicts, changes, or is substantially incompatible with dogma.

Pope Francis was accused of heresy over the wording of the document Human Fraternity, which attributes the plurality and diversity of religions to the will of God. He later clarified that this was due to the permissive will of God. However, I must point out that the Magisterium has never definitively taught the answer to that question, as to whether or exactly what God may positively will or permissively will within the diversity and plurality of religions. Therefore, no such position could be heresy. One can make a theological argument that the answer should be one position or another. But the Pope is not guilty of heresy for contradicting someone else’s theological conclusions, absent a dogmatic teaching by the Magisterium.

A person is not guilty of heresy for contradicting a non-infallible teaching, a common theological opinion, a particular form of discipline, or anything else short of infallible teaching. Pope John 22 could not have been guilty of even material heresy, due to his erroneous opinion that the blessed in Heaven do not have the Beatific Vision of God until the general Resurrection. He did not teach that error under the Keys, but only proposed it as an opinion. But also, the subject was not definitively settled by the Magisterium, until after his passing (in the document Benedictus Deus).

Formal heresy is an accusation against a person. Formal heresy occurs when the person knowingly and deliberately adheres to, or teaches material heresy. So the person must know that the idea which they believe or teach is contrary to the definitive teaching of the Church, and they must believe or teach this contrary position deliberately.

A person might misunderstand a Church teaching, and therefore adhere to material heresy innocently; such a person is not guilty of formal heresy. A person might not realize that their belief or teaching implies a contradiction to definitive Church teaching; again, such a person is innocent of formal heresy. When a person adheres to or teaches material heresy inadvertently, meaning without realizing that they are contradicting the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, this is not formal heresy and does not excommunicate.

Muller is incorrect in claiming that formal heresy requires “the will to contradict the truth.” To the contrary, heretics always think that their ideas are truth. If anyone taught heresy, even though he himself understood that the ideas being taught were heretical and false, he would certainly be guilty of formal heresy, and worse, of deliberately harming souls with falsehoods on faith or morals. But the usual case is that of a person, perhaps motivated by pride, who thinks his understanding and judgments on faith and morals are above that of the Church, who thinks that the Church can err gravely in Her definitive teachings, while he himself cannot. As a result of this pride, many persons are speaking vehemently against the Roman Pontiff, accusing him of grave errors essentially for contradicting their own understanding of Tradition or Scripture or past magisterial teachings. Pride goeth before schism, heresy, and apostasy.

In addition, it is often the case that the heretic denies that the dogma they are contradicting is truly infallible; they may claim that they are contradicting a non-infallible teaching, or that a Pope or Council went astray and taught grave error or heresy. Heretics do not admit that the teaching they contradict is infallible doctrine, as this would be an admission that they are wrong. In pride, they imagine that they are right while the Church Herself or the Pope or an Ecumenical Council is wrong.

In all such cases, the person who knows that they are contradicting definitive Church teaching has the required knowledge for the act to be formal heresy. They need not admit that their position is contrary to truth, but need only understand that their position is contrary to what the Church teaches definitively.

Now some persons claim that a Roman Pontiff might inadvertently adhere to or teach material heresy, or that he might commit formal heresy. But teaching material heresy is contrary to truth, and committing formal heresy is contrary to faith. Therefore, both claims are prevented by the charism of truth and never-failing faith taught by the ordinary universal magisterium and Vatican I. The Church has always taught one and the same interpretation of Luke 22:32 (“But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”). See the proofs here.

The Lord Jesus Christ, eternal Head of His body the Church, never allows any Roman Pontiff to err gravely on doctrine or discipline, for the sake of the faithful. Jesus designed the Ark of Salvation to be indefectible, so that the Church would never go astray or lead astray. This dogma of indefectibility requires that the Pope, as the supreme Shepherd and Teacher of the Church, never be permitted by God to teach grave error (including but not limited to material heresy), or institute a gravely erroneous discipline (lest the faithful be led astray by a practice which fosters heresy). But the charism of truth and never-failing faith, which is one of the gifts to the Church that keeps Her indefectible, also includes the gift to the Pope of a prevenient grace that preserves the Pope from failing gravely in faith, such as by apostasy, heresy, schism, or idolatry.

The Pope is the visible head of the Church and the foundational Rock on which the Church is founded. But as Pope Pius XII taught in Mystical Body of Christ (n. 40), “Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head” of the one Church. And so it cannot be said that Christ allows the visible head of the Church, the Roman Pontiff, to go astray into heresy, since there is only one head of the Church, found in the mystical unity of Christ with His Vicar. If the visible Head and Rock of the Church were to fail in faith, the Church would have defected; She cannot be indefectible if Her Head and Rock has failed in faith. Or if Christ ever permitted the Roman Pontiff to err gravely in doctrine or discipline, then the Church would be leading the faithful astray by means of Her chief Shepherd and Teacher; such a situation would be contrary to indefectibility.

This charism of truth and never-failing faith is a dogma under the ordinary universal magisterium, as confirmed by the definitive teaching of Vatican I.

Then the reference to Saint Robert Bellarmine, made by Cardinal Muller as well as by many of the papal opponents, is misleading. Doctor of the Church, Saint Bellarmine clearly stated that he did not believe God ever has or ever will permit any Pope to teach or commit heresy. See my Bellarmine posts here.

Bellarmine: “The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. From these privileges, we see that the first did not remain to his successors, but the second without a doubt did.” [Bellarmine, Robert. On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 156). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.]

So while Bellarmine discussed the opinion that a Pope might fall into heresy or teach heresy, and opined as to what would happen in such a case, he himself believed and repeatedly stated that God does not permit any Pope to teach or commit heresy. Therefore, references to Bellarmine do not support the claim that Pope Francis has taught material heresy or committed formal heresy.

OnePeterFive cited the now removed LifeSiteNews article as follows: Müller argued that through Francis’ implicit promotion and toleration of same-sex “blessings” and Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly “remarried,” the Pope is fostering a “heresy of practice.”

But the indefectibility of the Church and the fullness of authority of the Pope over the whole Church in both doctrine and discipline proves that this type of grave error is also not possible. It is contrary to indefectibility and contrary to the charism of truth and never-failing faith, since discipline that puts into practice heresy would foster that heresy and thereby harm the faithful in their path of salvation. But the Ark of Salvation is not only guided aright when the Pope or the Pope and Bishops are speaking or acting infallibly. For the sake of salvation, God preserves the Ark of Salvation from grave errors even in the non-infallible exercise of the Keys of Peter. Otherwise, the Roman Pontiff as the pilot and navigator of the Ark of Salvation would be able to run the ship aground or crash it on the rocks across many different times when the Pope or the Church speaks or acts non-infallibly — which is the more common case. Such a plan for the sole Ark of Salvation would be foolish and designed to fail, which is impossible as the Church was designed by God the Father, has Christ the Son as Her Head, and has the Holy Spirit as Her soul.

As for Muller’s claim that, if Pope Francis were to commit formal heresy, he would automatically lose his office, such a plan has never been taught by the Church. Bellarmine put forward that position only as a counter-factual hypothetical, since he believed that no Pope could teach or commit heresy. His belief was later confirmed by Vatican I in its definitive teaching, since the charism of truth and never-failing faith clearly does not permit heresy, a type of grave failure of faith.

No Roman Pontiff can be removed from office by any means other than death or valid resignation, since the types of errors that are proposed as the basis for his removal (automatically or by some act of the Church) can never occur due to the charism of truth and never-failing faith promised by Christ in Luke 22:32.

Ronald L Conte Jr