Third, the Roman pontiff, boasting of the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit.
Third, the Roman pontiff, boasting of the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit.
§ 461. (III) Elsewhere,79 we have proved in detail that the Roman pontiff, boasting of the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit, is not the infallible judge of controversies. Here we conclude briefly as follows: Whoever (1) arrogates for himself without the authority of Holy Scripture the privilege of infallibility and absolute power to judge; (2) is liable to error; (3) can become a heretic; (4) has in actual fact erred several times and has given false definitions; (5) is often not a sharer even according to the common measure of the gift of the Holy Spirit; (6) is often doubtful and uncertain; (7) offers absurd, vacuous, ridiculous interpretations of Scripture: such a person is not and cannot be the infallible judge of controversies.
The Roman pope: (1) Arrogates for himself, without the authority of Holy Scripture, the privilege of infallibility and absolute power to judge. Nowhere do Christ and the apostles send us back to the tribunal of the pope, and nowhere is the privilege of not erring granted the pope. (2) Is liable to error, for nowhere is he elevated to the prophetic and apostolic prerogative of infallibility but is left in the class of other people who are liable to error. (3) Can become a heretic, as is clear from [Jus canonicum,] dist. 40, c. Si papa, and from the confession of Joh. de Turrecremata (in dist. 79, c. Si quis pecunia, no. 6), Alphonsus de Castro (Contra haeres., bk. 1, c. 4), and Bellarmine (De pontif., bk. 2, c. 30, opin. 5). Antoninus states it beautifully (Summ., part 3, title 22, at the end of c. 7): “Because the pope can do all things, he can also do that which is common to all, namely, to err and sin, according to the passage: ‘Every man is a liar’ “** (Rom. 3:3; Ps. 116:11). ** (4) Has in actual fact erred several times and has given false definitions, as is witnessed by the histories of Zephirinus, who was a Montanist; Marcellinus, who sacrificed to idols; Liberius, who was an Arian; Siricius, who said that marriage was a pollution; Honorius, who gave his assent to the Monotheletes in his Epistle ad Sergium; etc. (5) Is often not a sharer even according to the common measure of the gift of the Holy Spirit, as is witnessed by the terrible disgraces annotated by Papistic historians themselves. (6) Is often doubtful and uncertain, because at times there obviously was no pope, as when the Roman see was vacant not merely for days and months but even for years. At times there were several popes at the same time, and no one knew which of them was the true pope. At times they occupied the papacy without a legitimate call, namely, through magic arts or through the bribery of simony or through power and partisanship, etc. But now, only legitimate election makes a legitimate pope, and a doubtful pope is held as no pope, as Bellarmine argues (De concil., bk. 2, c. 19). (7) Offers absurd, vacuous, ridiculous interpretations of Scripture, as we see from the decretal epistles of the popes and from many chapters of canon law.
Therefore the Roman pope is not and cannot be the infallible judge of controversies.