Can a Catholic believe any thing they want during Papal Interregnum¹?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Angainor:

Why or why not?

¹The period between the death or resignation of a Pope and the election of his successor, when the See of Peter is vacant, is called the Interregnum.

What happened to your formatting ?​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Angainor:

If the question is insulting it may be because the original question of “Can a…” should be obvious to anyone, Catholic or not. I agree, however it is the “Why or why not?” question that isn’t obvious (at least to me).

I wouldn’t use the term “prison guard”, but yes, it is my understanding that the Pope is the authority on what Catholics need to believe.

Because you are not “free!” during the time between Popes, it would seem that authority still exists somewhere during that time, even if there doesn’t happen to be a man you can go ask to authoritatively answer any question you have.

I am trying to figure out exactly where authority exists when Peter’s chair is empty, and, why can’t authority always exist there?

In *that *case:​

The teaching authority of the Pope as a bishop comes from two things:

• his episcopal consecration as bishop of the diocese of Rome;
• and the position of the see of Rome within the Catholic Church.

His authority as a **legislator **(leaving aside his activity as ruler of the Vatican City State) is episcopal, as above, with some exceptions; his position as a priest is founded on ordination to the priesthood, as with any other priest.

His functions as ruler of the Vatican City State, because this rulership is conjoined with his position specifically as Pope, without flowing from it as though it were necessarily connected with it (it’s not; the Pope would be as truly Pope if he were a beggar) are delegated, usually; when the Pope dies, they are of a kind which can cease to be exercised, for a while at least.

About those exceptions - these are things he does as Pope, such as:

• calling or presiding over Ecumenical Councils
• proceeding with the stages of causes for canonisation
• holding consistories
• nominating pastors to care for episcopal or quasi-episcopal jurisdictions
• dividing, joining, or appointing dioceses
• appointing legates and other diplomatic or quasi-diplomatic personnel
• presiding at Eucharistic Congresses in person or by proxy

• and so forth, which simply come to a stop. These all go with being Pope, in such a way that only the Pope can do them; they cannot be delegated, unlike his responsibilities as a temporal ruler. This is because they come from

• the Pope’s “fullness of power” committed by Christ to St.Peter

or from

• the common law of the Church

or from

• the customary rights and duties of the see of Rome

Those which are founded upon law can in most cases, but not IIRC all, be changed; not because it would be unorthodox to do so, but because it would mean massive fuss and bother - for example, the Pope could in principle separate his function as successor of Peter from his position as bishop of Rome; but it’s not likely to happen.

So it’s rather complicated - the thing is, that:

• not everything the Pope does, is done in his capacity as Pope
• the man who is Pope, is a lot of other things too - such as:

Patriarch of the West
Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Bishop of Rome

• and a few other things which I can’t remember : )

Hope that helps - there are probably a good many blunders; I hope not ##