M
mpartyka
Guest
Does there exist any set of circumstances under which the Church could excommunicate or otherwise depose the Pope and elect a new one?
–Mike
–Mike
- Status
A
as-a-child
Guest
Hard to tell cause no pope has ever openly taught error.
But there are cases of antipopes.
But there are cases of antipopes.
M
mpartyka
Guest
What about excommunication on moral grounds (e.g., having an affair, embezzling funds)?
–Mike
T
thistle
Guest
These are not grounds for anyone to be excommunicated.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Okay. What if a future Pope was discovered to also be a member in good standing with the Freemasons and refused to disavow the Masons?
–Mike
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
Do you really think that a man could make it to that high office without anyone knowing of his ties to that type of society? I doubt that a man would even make it into the rank of Cardinal without that coming out.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Being legally excommunicated and being deposed from the papacy are two different issues. A pope could theoretically incur automatic excommunication by - say - being a formal heretic. No body of the Church would have the legitimate ecclesiastical authority to depose him though.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
no, there is no authority on earth who has the right to do this, although kings have tried
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Theoretically I believe it could be done by the bishops acting in unison and through unanimous consent with sufficient objective data and cause.
Pope Honorious I was anathemized about 40 years posthumously after there was later discovered private letters showing his tacit (silent) support of a heretical teaching for purposes of maintaining unity between two opposing sects. I don’t think this is formal excommunication but I think it makes a case that posthumous excommunication is possible. Fortunately in Honorious’ case no ex cathedra teaching was made and he essentially was condemned for “failure to teach” rather than heretical teaching. The practical reason for a posthumous ex-communication or anathemization is that any non-dogmatic ecclesial practices installed under such a pope can be superseded without any due concern to respecting the tradition of maintaining prior popes non-binding decisions and policies.
James
Pope Honorious I was anathemized about 40 years posthumously after there was later discovered private letters showing his tacit (silent) support of a heretical teaching for purposes of maintaining unity between two opposing sects. I don’t think this is formal excommunication but I think it makes a case that posthumous excommunication is possible. Fortunately in Honorious’ case no ex cathedra teaching was made and he essentially was condemned for “failure to teach” rather than heretical teaching. The practical reason for a posthumous ex-communication or anathemization is that any non-dogmatic ecclesial practices installed under such a pope can be superseded without any due concern to respecting the tradition of maintaining prior popes non-binding decisions and policies.
James
M
MonkeyTape
Guest
Besides that would this constitute something different from say fornication? Popes shouldn’t be doing that either, but have. So if they joined the Freemasons, which they shouldn’t, would that be any different?
If it isn’t different then there wouldn’t be talk of deposition or excommunication - just as nothing like that happened when Alexander VI was pope despite his fornicating.
Thoughts?
G
Greg_Kuglin
Guest
The historical events of the Cadaver Synod might be of some interest.
Stephen had the previous pope, Formosus, dug up, put on trial for usurping the seat of the Roman see. Stephen stamped a big “defective” sticker on Formosus’ papacy by reburying him in a lay-mans cemetery, then digging him up again and throwing his remains in the Tiber river. Consequent popes had a hard time then deciding where they stood on the issue until Sergius III (he declared the original trial of the maggot pile valid).
heres somewhere to start
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
This event does seem to throw the same monkey wrench into the papacy as an excommunication would. Both mean a defect in the succession of apostles the popes claim to have.
P
pnewton
Guest
With whom would such a pope be out of communion with? Where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Wow…that’s just royally sick.
I read the wikipedia links, and according to them, both Pope Stephen VI and his successor Pope Romanus were “deposed”. Any accuracy to this?
M
mpartyka
Guest
The other bishops of the Chuch, I suppose, or maybe just the cardinals. What would happen today if, say, an American cardinal, or even a group of cardinals from all over the world, formally pronounced excommunication on the Pope?
P
pnewton
Guest
That’s an easy one. They would lack the authority. It would be like a cabinet member firing the president.
I
Inman
Guest
Interesting question.
I am afraid it is one we will have to trust the cardinals to select holy and orthodox men to be pope and the Holy Spirit to protect the popes from any conduct or teaching that might make this theoritical question a real problem.
As noted by others, I would think it is theoritically possible for a pope to automatically excommunicate himself by cooperating in an abortion for example.
That being said, if the pope’s teaching or conduct is gravely in error, I think it is the duty of the Pope’s fellow bishops to call him to account as St. Paul did to St. Peter. How this would be done exactly, I don’t presume to know, but it should in line with Christian charity and respect for the truth.
I am afraid it is one we will have to trust the cardinals to select holy and orthodox men to be pope and the Holy Spirit to protect the popes from any conduct or teaching that might make this theoritical question a real problem.
As noted by others, I would think it is theoritically possible for a pope to automatically excommunicate himself by cooperating in an abortion for example.
That being said, if the pope’s teaching or conduct is gravely in error, I think it is the duty of the Pope’s fellow bishops to call him to account as St. Paul did to St. Peter. How this would be done exactly, I don’t presume to know, but it should in line with Christian charity and respect for the truth.
K
Katholish
Guest
I would argue no. I actually wrote a paper on this for one of my classes on the History of the Papacy. Here is a brief section that in part explains the reason for my position–or at least some of the sources.
On the other hand, when defining the nature of papal infallibility, the First Vatican Council expressed an understanding of a passage from the Gospel of Luke indicating that the successors of St. Peter could not fall away from the Catholic Faith through formal heresy or apostasy.
(footnote 2)
The charism, or gift, of unfailing faith was given to the successors of St. Peter. Clearly it was the Council’s primary intention to use this passage to establish the basis for the doctrine of papal infallibility which had a very specific formulation. This fourth chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus can easily be applied to the question of whether it is possible for a pope to fall into formal heresy without doing harm to its original intention.
The denial of a reigning pontiff’s ability to adopt formal heresy seems to accord better with the protection afforded by the Holy Spirit preserving the Church from error. To say that a reigning pontiff could automatically be deposed, but without any competent authority to declare such a deposition valid, would be to introduce an element of chaos into the Holy See and make the protection of infallibility practically useless. Infallibility, in part, is a protection bestowed on the papacy in order that the Christian faithful might have confidence in the purity of the Church’s doctrine. If it were possible for a reigning pontiff to promulgate heresy (even if he were to thereby forfeit his office), we could never have that confidence which infallibility is supposed to promote. Pastor Aeternus, however, specifically states that one of the primary purposes of the gift of unfailing faith is to remove the occasion of schism.
It would be misleading to imply that the pope’s protection from formal heresy is a dogmatic teaching of the Church. It is, however, considered the more probable theological position. Famed theologian Gerard van Noort touched upon this question in his manual of Dogmatic Theology.
The passage of St. Robert Bellarmine referred to by van Noort is from Bellarmine’s treatise De Romano Pontifice where in chapter 6 of Book 4 he expresses the opinion that even as a private person, it is a probable opinion that it is not possible for the pope to be a heretic.
Footnote 2:
The First Vatican Council, Session IV, Pastor Aeturnus; as quoted in The Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English Translation (St. Mary’s, Kansas: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), 101.
The text of Vatican I found in The Church Teaches is a translation from the 24th Edition of Denzinger. It corresponds with Denzinger number 1836 and 1837 according to the old numbering system, 3070 and 3071 in the new system. The Latin below is taken from the 35th Edition of Denzinger, and contains the most critical statement of the passage corresponding to the sentence, “Now this charism of truth and of never-failing faith was conferred upon St. Peter and his successors in this Chair.”
Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma Petro eiusque in hac cathedra successoribus divinitus collatum est
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I think they would have to get papal permission to call a council meeting and he would have to approve the agenda.
I think an excommunication would require a unanimous decision of all bishops - or at least a super majority consent. That itself would be pragmatically impossible unless it were Satan himself.
James
T
tdgesq
Guest
Could you provide the links? Pope Stephen VI was assassinated if I recall correctly. It is believed that Pope Romanus was forcibly removed from office by political enemies, but I’ve never been able to find much of an historical account regarding him.
Nobody disputes that if you kill, imprison, or forcibly remove a pope he has in some sense been deposed. I guess I took your question to mean whether there is some ecclesiastical authority that can legitimately take away a pope’s spiritual office.
Btw, it is a little bit difficult to depose a pope from office if he is already dead. I also don’t see anyway that a dead person could be excommunicated - cut off from the sacraments and fellowship of the Church. Bishops, including a Pope, have been posthumously anathematized.
K
Katholish
Guest
It is impossible to forcably remove a pope from office. Even if you exile him to the salt mines, he is still pope unless he resigns of his own accord.
There is also no possible way that a pope could be excommunicated by another person or council.
My earlier comments were directed at the idea that the pope could excommunicate himself, which is something I argued could also not be done.
There is also no possible way that a pope could be excommunicated by another person or council.
My earlier comments were directed at the idea that the pope could excommunicate himself, which is something I argued could also not be done.
- Status