Can a heretic become pope? If so, then what?

[Veritas41]

But that “theory” isn’t needed anyway because it shows a lack of faith in God. It tries to make infallibility a mere human legal construct: “if the Pope tried to teach heresy, then for that reason he has ceased to be Pope”. But upon analysis that statement makes infallibility just a tautology, merely the logical result of a definition which by its very premise excludes a pope ever teaching heresy (because if he did, he would stop being Pope). But that’s just a self-fullfilling prophecy contruct that isn’t helpful at all in defining dogma or determining what we should believe (because anyone who wants to can question that a Pope was a heretic at any definition. If you want to believe that the Assumption is a heresy…just say that Pius ceased to be Pope upon declaring it!) The point is…it doesnt work, and this “theory” floated around is a simplistic understanding.

The real explanation is much simpler (though requires more trust): The Pope WONT teach heresy ex cathedra. It has nothing to do with the Pope losing his office IF he tried to teach heresy. It is merely the faith that if someone is Pope then they wont teach heresy.

AMEN!!

 

[prv]

And according to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, the bull in effect before *Universo Dominici Gregis *on conclaves:

So actually, since a heretic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, at the time of John XXIII’s election, it did not render the cardinals ineligible for election.

“None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”

So, can a cardinal be deposed (under these rules) and cease to be a cardinal, and therefore lose the rights thereof, then be excomunicated, etc., and not be allowed to be summoned to the conclave?

 

[porthos11]

“None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor.”

So, can a cardinal be deposed (under these rules) and cease to be a cardinal, and therefore lose the rights thereof, then be excomunicated, etc., and not be allowed to be summoned to the conclave?

I think cardinals are never deposed.

 

[batteddy]

So, can a cardinal be deposed (under these rules) and cease to be a cardinal, and therefore lose the rights thereof, then be excomunicated, etc., and not be allowed to be summoned to the conclave?

If the Pope downgraded him from the cardinalate, then yes, I’m sure.

The quote I think mainly applied to things the Pope did not personally do to the cardinal. Like, an inderdict that affects the Cardinal’s whole country (but the previous Pope did not single out the cardinal himself) or an automatic excommunication that no one else knows about.

Obviously, if a Pope wanted to downgrade someone from the level of Cardinal, or wanted to change the election rules in an individual case…he could.

 

[batteddy]

and his heresy will immediately be vanquished.

Not necessarily. Many popes, I’m sure, have been private heretics…and in fact some have personally said as much. But God would prevent them from ever teaching heresy publically…at least not in their official capacity while attempting to act as universal and supreme teacher of the whole church (“ex cathedra”).

 

[Ignatius]

There is something that I don’t quite fully understand about the doctrine of papal infallibility.

What happens if a heretic becomes pope? I know, you are thinking, this is impossible…the Cardinals would never vote a heretic to be pope. Suppose however that he posed to be a devout, orthodox theologian, but interiorly, he was a completely unorthodox Catholic. He becomes pope. Farfetched, yes, but it doesn’t seem entirely impossible. We have had bad popes before.

Suppose he even teaches blatant heresy. Is he still a legitimate pope?

I hope my question makes sense. If you need any clarifications, let me know.

Actually there was a thread, I believe on Forums.Catholic.Com but I can’t recall where, about a supporter of a queen who had two popes assasinated in order to get a supporter in. When her man was eventually elected, he recanted his support for her. Awsome!

 

[trogiah]

There is something that I don’t quite fully understand about the doctrine of papal infallibility.

What happens if a heretic becomes pope? I know, you are thinking, this is impossible…the Cardinals would never vote a heretic to be pope. Suppose however that he posed to be a devout, orthodox theologian, but interiorly, he was a completely unorthodox Catholic. He becomes pope. Farfetched, yes, but it doesn’t seem entirely impossible. We have had bad popes before.

Suppose he even teaches blatant heresy. Is he still a legitimate pope?

I hope my question makes sense. If you need any clarifications, let me know.

Moments after Jesus told Peter that He (Jesus) would give Peter the keys to the kingdom on Earth, Jesus was calling Peter a Satan. Other evidence in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles indicate Peter was slow to catch on to some very important matters regarding faith. Did that make him a heretic?

I think the only way a Pope could make himself illegitimate would be to deny that Jesus is the Messiah of God. Which would be a pretty silly thing to do since that would undercut the basis for his own authority. Anything else we could just chalk up to not understanding God’s kingdom perfectly which has undoubtedly been true for every Pope since Peter.

Jim