Can the Pope be Deposed?

[mardukm]

So what you are claiming is that the bishop of Rome cannot be deposed but it’s OK for the entire church to ignore him and choose another.

Is that correct?

Not exactly. They can’t choose another until he resigns. I believe ignoring such a publicly heretical Pope is the best and quickest way to force him to resign.

Apparently, there are theorists who posit that a heretical Pope is both excommunicated (de facto) and deposed (de jure). I guess they would be called sedevacantists. Some of these probabaly cite St. Robert Bellarmine as their authority (as others have pointed out), but that would be premature. St. Bellarmine asserted that it was the duty of the Church through her bishops to correct the Pope, but he also affirmed that no one had the authority to impose a judgment on him.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

But in a united Church, should the Patriarchs have the authority, granted they all agree, to depose a Pope?

I know this is hypothetical, but is there some credibility to it?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Certainly, it is more “cut and dry” when a pope or patriarch contradicts established formularies expressing Trinitarian and Christological dogmas.

When Nestorius used the term “Christotokos” rather than “Theotokos” - it outraged not only bishops, but also Christian laity.

Historically, popes and their orthodoxy were only questioned by their successors and/or Councils as occurred in the case of Pope Honorius. And the Roman Church refused to admit Pope St Liberius (a saint in the East) to the honours of the altar.

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

But in a united Church, should the Patriarchs have the authority, granted they all agree, to depose a Pope?

I know this is hypothetical, but is there some credibility to it?

No, that should be for his own synod to decide.

 

[marlo]

Isn’t it that all the other Patriarchs at a council in Istanbul (constantinople) deposed the Patriarch Ireneos of Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Synod went so far that they demoted the Bishop to a mere monk

No, that should be for his own synod to decide.

 

[Hesychios]

Isn’t it that all the other Patriarchs at a council in Istanbul (constantinople) deposed the Patriarch Ireneos of Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Synod went so far that they demoted the Bishop to a mere monk

Actually, no.

It was the synod that deposed the Patriarch and returned him to the monastic state. The council decided to recognize the synod’s decision, and recognize (and henceforth commemorate) their next choice. Among other things this international recognition would be helpful to the new patriarch in legally securing title to the church properties and church records and the keys to the temples.

However, the synod had a hard time getting him out of his apartments and the State of Israel was not happy about it at all, refusing to recognize the change for a long time.

 

[dvdjs]

Isn’t it that all the other Patriarchs at a council in Istanbul (constantinople) deposed the Patriarch Ireneos of Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Synod went so far that they demoted the Bishop to a mere monk

FWIW, here is what Wiki has:

The decision reached by the Holy Synod of Jerusalem of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre was made final on May 6, 2005 by a two-thirds vote of that body. As far as the Church leaders were concerned, Irenaios ceased to be Patriarch from that point. On 24 May 2005 a special pan-Orthodox Conference, was convened in Constantinople (Istanbul) to review the decisions of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem. The pan-Orthodox Conference under the presidency of the Ecumenical Patriarch voted overwhelmingly to confirm the decision of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher and to strike Irenaios’ name from the diptychs, On 30 May, the Synod of Jerusalem chose Metropolitan Cornelius of Petra to serve as locum tenens pending the election of a replacement for Irenaios.

The Holy Synod of Jerusalem went further. On June 16, 2005 it announced that Irenaios had been demoted to the rank of monk.[2] This action is now widely viewed as being uncanonical. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has also said the defrocking does not have any validity, and is not recognized by any Orthodox Church. Since then Irenaios has not left his apartment and is de-facto imprisoned there.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Irenaios

This account leaves open the possibility that pan-Orthodox conference might have disagreed with the Holy Synod, maintaining recognition of the ostensibly ousted Patriarch rather than the new one. (Indeed, it appears that the not all of the actions of the the HS were fully recognized outside of the JP.)

The situation, clearly within the realm of operations, would then be rather reminiscent of the case of Ignatios and Photios - a case in which, prior to the bad outcome, even Photios was interested in the looking for the opinion of the prime Patriarch. Moving back to current, times, there has been considerable discussion about what the MP might do if the HS of the OCA were to remove Met Jonah via the “Bishop Nikolai’ treatment”. (listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind1102D&L=ORTHODOX&T=0&F=&S=&P=13719). Some anticipate a reaction against the HS action, with perhaps futher action against the “autocephalous” OCA.

So your point us well taken Marlo; the denial is facile.