Pope Alexander VI was one of the most notorious popes in Church history. He lived an immoral life before he became pope. When he was a Cardinal, he fathered several children. He was a bad Catholic but he was a valid pope. He was not a public heretic because he did not teach any heresy. Someone who is simply immoral but not a heretic could be a pope. Immorality will send someone to hell and it will make him a bad person.
Someone like Pope Alexander VI could be and was a true pope. Despite Pope Alexander VI’s alleged moral problems, theologically he taught the faith. For instance, he indicated that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Eastern schismatics could not be saved.
Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 6, p. 146:
"Amongst other ecclesiastical acts of Pope Alexander VI...He wrote to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, admonishing him to do everything in his power to persuade his consort to abjure the Russian religion, and accept the Christian faith."
So, here we see that Pope Alexander VI admonished the Grand Duke of Lithuania to convert his consort from the Russian Orthodox Church to Roman Catholicism. Despite his immorality, Pope Alexander VI obviously believed in the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation and the necessity for the Russian Schismatics to convert to it.
Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 6, p. 146:
"Amongst other ecclesiastical acts of Pope Alexander VI...He wrote to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, admonishing him to do everything in his power to persuade his consort to abjure the Russian religion, and accept the Christian faith."
So, here we see that Pope Alexander VI admonished the Grand Duke of Lithuania to convert his consort from the Russian Orthodox Church to Roman Catholicism. Despite his immorality, Pope Alexander VI obviously believed in the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation and the necessity for the Russian Schismatics to convert to it.
It is also very interesting that in the conflict with the fiery Dominican precaher, Girolamo Savonarola, Alexander VI wanted him silence. And he was not being slilenced. So, Alexander VI threatened to interdict the entire area where he was preaching. That is very interesting because it shows how he did not hesitate to use the fullness of his authority to halt preaching or activity he deemed doctrinally harmful. Despite his immorality, he did not hesitate to utilize that kind of power. Can you imagine, Vatican II popes ever doing anything to stop any of the many pro-abortion public figures who receives invalid "communion" in the Novus Ordo Churches, or pro-abortion public figures who speak at "Catholic" colleges. It is just another interesting contrast. I do not say that Pope Alexander VI was a good pope and he went to heaven. What I mean is that Pope Alexander VI was a valid pope because he was not a heretic.
Russian Orthodox Liturgy
(This is a valid Mass)
(This is a valid Mass)
A man who professes the Catholic Faith whole and entire, no matter how wicked he may be, remains a member of the Catholic Church. Even if he hate God. Even if he be a murderer. Even if he be a sodomite.
God forbid, of course! Such a man, if he does not repent, will have an eternity of suffering in hell. His Church membership will have profited him nothing; his faith, entirely dead because without charity, will not save him in the least. His knowledge of the True Faith will merely add to his misery in hell because he will have sinned with full knowledge of the sinfulness of his deeds.
Yes, all this is true. But such a man, if elected to the papacy, would still be a valid Pope, because what keeps a man from being validly elected to the papacy is not a lack of holiness but the profession of heresy (among other things). In other words, what keeps him from being a valid Pope is not the commission of sins against morals (otherwise no one could be Pope, since we are all sinners), no matter how many or how grievous, but the commission of sins against Faith.
This is standard Catholic teaching and not controversial. Pope Pius XII put it best when he taught authoritatively in his beautiful encyclical on the Church:
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis:
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins."
God forbid, of course! Such a man, if he does not repent, will have an eternity of suffering in hell. His Church membership will have profited him nothing; his faith, entirely dead because without charity, will not save him in the least. His knowledge of the True Faith will merely add to his misery in hell because he will have sinned with full knowledge of the sinfulness of his deeds.
Yes, all this is true. But such a man, if elected to the papacy, would still be a valid Pope, because what keeps a man from being validly elected to the papacy is not a lack of holiness but the profession of heresy (among other things). In other words, what keeps him from being a valid Pope is not the commission of sins against morals (otherwise no one could be Pope, since we are all sinners), no matter how many or how grievous, but the commission of sins against Faith.
This is standard Catholic teaching and not controversial. Pope Pius XII put it best when he taught authoritatively in his beautiful encyclical on the Church:
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis:
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins."
The only sins that by their very nature sever a man from the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, are the sins of schism, heresy, and apostasy. What this means is that these sins are such that committing them renders you a non-Catholic. A heretic, after all, professes a different religion than a Catholic, and so he cannot be a member of the Church, because one cannot be a Catholic and a Non-Catholic at the same time.
Heresy, which kills souls, is even worse than murder (a horrible evil), which takes a life.
Pope Saint Pius X, Editae Saepe # 43(1910):
“It is a certain, well-established fact that no other crime so seriously offends God and provokes His greatest wrath as the vice of heresy.”
Therefore, a schismatic, a heretic, or an apostate could not be a valid Pope, for this would mean that a man who is not a member of the Mystical Body can nevertheless be the head of that Mystical Body, which is a contradiction.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 6,
Whether the unbelief of pagans or heathens is graver than other kinds?:
“I answer that, As stated above, two things may be considered in unbelief. One of these is its relation to faith: and from this point of view, he who resists the faith after accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he who resists it without having accepted it, even as he who fails to fulfill what he has promised, sins more grievously than if he had never promised it. In this way the unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith. Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all. The second thing to be considered in unbelief is the corruption of matters of faith. On this respect, since heathens err on more points than Jews, and these in more points than heretics, the unbelief of heathens is more grievous than the unbelief of the Jews, and that of the Jews than that of the heretics, except in such cases as that of the Manichees, who, in matters of faith, err even more than heathens do. Of these two gravities the first surpasses the second from the point of view of guilt; since, as stated above unbelief has the character of guilt, from its resisting faith rather than from the mere absence of faith, for the latter as was stated seems rather to bear the character of punishment. Hence, speaking absolutely, the unbelief of heretics is the worst.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, compiled during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, states very plainly: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void”
Heresy, which kills souls, is even worse than murder (a horrible evil), which takes a life.
Pope Saint Pius X, Editae Saepe # 43(1910):
“It is a certain, well-established fact that no other crime so seriously offends God and provokes His greatest wrath as the vice of heresy.”
Therefore, a schismatic, a heretic, or an apostate could not be a valid Pope, for this would mean that a man who is not a member of the Mystical Body can nevertheless be the head of that Mystical Body, which is a contradiction.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 6,
Whether the unbelief of pagans or heathens is graver than other kinds?:
“I answer that, As stated above, two things may be considered in unbelief. One of these is its relation to faith: and from this point of view, he who resists the faith after accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he who resists it without having accepted it, even as he who fails to fulfill what he has promised, sins more grievously than if he had never promised it. In this way the unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith. Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all. The second thing to be considered in unbelief is the corruption of matters of faith. On this respect, since heathens err on more points than Jews, and these in more points than heretics, the unbelief of heathens is more grievous than the unbelief of the Jews, and that of the Jews than that of the heretics, except in such cases as that of the Manichees, who, in matters of faith, err even more than heathens do. Of these two gravities the first surpasses the second from the point of view of guilt; since, as stated above unbelief has the character of guilt, from its resisting faith rather than from the mere absence of faith, for the latter as was stated seems rather to bear the character of punishment. Hence, speaking absolutely, the unbelief of heretics is the worst.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, compiled during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, states very plainly: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void”
To appreciate how important and serious this difference is between bad Catholic and Non-Catholic, let us take a look at one of the absolutely most immoral Catholic Popes in history:
Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 2., 1946, pp. 510-511
"Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary (Pope John XII) was the guardian. Pope John XII’s life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders. At times John XII even became the defender of the threatened social order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to danger.
Yes, there can be bad Popes, indeed. But in the exercise of their office they will be as orthodox and as Catholic as any other. Christ promised as much: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).The Church is not guaranteed to have a Pope at all times; but when she has one, she is guaranteed to have one who’s Catholic. This is evident also because the Pope is the principle of unity in the Church and the proximate rule of Faith; he is the guarantor of orthodoxy and to him all must submit as a condition of their salvation
Rev. Fernand Mourret, A History of the Catholic Church, Vol. 2., 1946, pp. 510-511
"Divine providence, watching over the Church, miraculously preserved the deposit of faith, of which this young voluptuary (Pope John XII) was the guardian. Pope John XII’s life was a monstrous scandal, but his bullarium is faultless. We cannot sufficiently admire this prodigy. There is not a heretic or a schismatic who has not endeavored to legitimate his own conduct dogmatically: Photius tried to justify his pride, Luther his sensual passions, Calvin his cold cruelty. Neither Sergius III nor John XII nor Benedict IX nor Alexander VI, supreme pontiffs, definers of the faith, certain of being heard and obeyed by the whole Church, uttered, from the height of their apostolic pulpit, a single word that could be an approval of their disorders. At times John XII even became the defender of the threatened social order, of offended canon law, and of the religious life exposed to danger.
Yes, there can be bad Popes, indeed. But in the exercise of their office they will be as orthodox and as Catholic as any other. Christ promised as much: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).The Church is not guaranteed to have a Pope at all times; but when she has one, she is guaranteed to have one who’s Catholic. This is evident also because the Pope is the principle of unity in the Church and the proximate rule of Faith; he is the guarantor of orthodoxy and to him all must submit as a condition of their salvation