Can the Pope be excommunicated?

[mardukm]

Unfailing faith passage. I have quoted it a couple times now. To say that a pope could commit formal heresy would be a contradiction with that proposition.

I think the problem is that you are NOT equating the “unfailing Faith” passage to infallilibity. In fact, it refers to nothing more nor less than infallibility - read the passage again and you will find that the FULL passage says “the charism of unfailing faith.” Since it refers to nothing more nor less than infallibility itself, the Council pronounced definitively that such charism is ONLY exercised by the Pope ex cathedra. IOW, it is active ONLY in the exercise of that particular function of the papal office (as far as the papacy is concerned, that is). The charism is not active to protect the Pope in his personal belief, but only to protect the Church in her public teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Katholish

BTW, something I always like to bring up to non-Catholics who mistakenly believe the Pope is personally infallible is the fact that the Vatican Council changed the very title of the Decree from “The infallibility of the Pope” to "The Infallible teaching authority (or Magisterium) of the Pope. This was done to ENSURE that it could not be mistaken that infallibility applies to the TEACHING OFFICE of the Church, in which the Pope shares, and not the Pope himself.

Here is the exposition of Bishop Gasser, the spokesman for the deputation de Fide at the Vatican Council:

In what sense is the Pope’s infallibility personal? It is personal in as far as it belongs to each legitimate occupant of the Roman See, But it is not personal as belonging to the Pope as a private person or private doctor. So we do not speak of personal infallibility although we attribute it to the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person, but as a public person, the Head of the Church in his relation to the Universal Church…[H]e enjoys the divine assistance, whereby he cannot err, only when really and actually (reipsa et actu) exercising the office of supreme judge in controversies of faith, and of teacher of the universal Church."

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

With whom would such a pope be out of communion with? Where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church.

And Catholics wonder why the EO reject the western ecclesiology. The unity of the Church is reduced to the bishop of Rome. The early Church though viewed Christ as the source of the Church. Your statement ‘where the bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church’ is almost identical to a St. Ignatius statement except that Christ is the center of St. Ignatius’s statement. He said, “where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Christ is the source of the Church. It is through the Eucharist that the Church is founded and that is where its unity is. The bishop of Rome is not the source of unity.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

And Catholics wonder why the EO reject the western ecclesiology. The unity of the Church is reduced to the bishop of Rome. The early Church though viewed Christ as the source of the Church. Your statement ‘where the bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church’ is almost identical to a St. Ignatius statement except that Christ is the center of St. Ignatius’s statement. He said, “where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Christ is the source of the Church. It is through the Eucharist that the Church is founded and that is where its unity is. The bishop of Rome is not the source of unity.

I agree with you for the most part, but I wouldn’t assign it to western ecclesiology per se, but to the (misguided?) zeal of some western Catholics in preserving the legitimate honor and prerogatives of the papacy in the face of detractors. I would distinguish between the visible standard of doctrinal unity (which is the bishop of Rome) from the visible standard of ontological unity (which is the Eucharist).

I would also be reticent in claiming outright “where the Pope is, there is the Catholic Church,” for there have been anti-Popes in the past. I am not saying that the Pope CANNOT be the standard of unity for the Catholic. What I’m saying is that it is not that simple. I would agree to the statement, “where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church,” for some Ecumenical Councils have said as much. But at that point, the objective reality of the Church’s unity depends not on the Pope per se, but on a supernatural quality that has its source in Christ.

Blessings

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t think it is an issue of “insisting upon.”

That is the terminology used in canon 193 section 2; but I agree that the prior question must be what the canon means by “removed from ecclesiastical office.”

1. Canon 192 states that the removal from office occurs latae sententiae, and does not require a juridical person to do so.

I think that is correct, even though it does not use the term latae sententiae. It appears to me that it is similar to a latae sententiae suspension of a cleric.

1. Establishing whether what the Pope believes is a heresy is not a matter of pronouncing an ecclesiastical penalty on the Pope.

Heresy is something different. It is dealt with in canon 1364. Canon 194 deals with a person who has publicly defected from the faith or who has publicly broken communion. That in - my interpretation - entails something more than just being a heretic, even though I realize the categories are not mutually exclusive.

It is ONLY a matter of determining whether his belief per se is a heresy . . . .

Yes, but someone has to decide. If you are saying that by publicly defecting or breaking communion the person is removed from his office by virtue of the law itself, then I agree with you again. I still have a question.

What does publicly defecting from the faith or breaking communion entail? If a cleric, Bishop, Pope openly states that he no longer believes the Catholic faith or that is his no longer in communion with the Church, then that obviously qualifies. Believing in something heretical doesn’t seem to, especially since it is dealt with specifically by other canons. Maybe there is something in between these two - like manifest heresy perhaps. I’m not sure if that qualifies as a “public” defection or break from communion though.

[A]nd the competent authority for such a matter is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or perhaps the Rota. Once such a determination is made, the sentence is pronounced by virtue of the law itself, not by any juridical person.

Maybe the Roman Rota. Maybe the college of cardinals. They would still have to make a judgment though as to whether they will insist upon the Pope’s physical removal from office, which necessarily entails a judgment that he has publicly defected/broken communion.

When it is determined that the Pope holds to heretical belief, the College of Cardinals should be free to elect a new Pope . Anyone who follows the old “Pope” would be outside the Church.

I don’t think that is right in the case of heresy. The provisions of canon law that deal with it would only make an exercise of jurisdiction illicit, not invalid. And if the pontiff’s exercise of office is still valid, then there isn’t any authority on Earth that could remove him against his will. Would this also be true in the case of a public defection? At this point, I don’t know.

Obviously, the sedevacantists and followers of Lefebre(sp?) were/are not competent authorities to make any pronouncement on whether or not a Pope’s position was/is heretical or heterodox. No singular juridical person is competent to do so.

Yes, and maybe that means the final question doesn’t need to be answered. So far as I know, there isn’t a case where a pope publicly defected or publicly broke communion and was subsequently removed by a body that could be considered a competent authority.

Thank you for your insights.

 

[Pro_Domina]

And Catholics wonder why the EO reject the western ecclesiology. The unity of the Church is reduced to the bishop of Rome. The early Church though viewed Christ as the source of the Church. Your statement ‘where the bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church’ is almost identical to a St. Ignatius statement except that Christ is the center of St. Ignatius’s statement. He said, “where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Christ is the source of the Church. It is through the Eucharist that the Church is founded and that is where its unity is. The bishop of Rome is not the source of unity.

No my friend, lets not enter this path because the reason the EO does not accept the Pope is called PRIDE.

 

[jimmy]

No my friend, lets not enter this path because the reason the EO does not accept the Pope is called PRIDE.

And the reason you say that is because of ARROGANCE. It is almost hysterical how many latins like to try to read another man’s heart. The self-reighteousness knows no bounds it seems. So lets not go there.

 

[Pro_Domina]

And the reason you say that is because of ARROGANCE. It is almost hysterical how many latins like to try to read another man’s heart. The self-reighteousness knows no bounds it seems. So lets not go there.

I don’t need to have discernment of souls to state the obvious.

A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos…

---

You sound like a latin after the II Vatican council. A real error there was to make fraternal correction a sin against charity.

Self-rightousness and a sense of rightousness is as different from auto-cannonization and a chaste person being angered by an indecent propasal. I am proud of being a Roman Catholic, not becauese of me, but because of the Church. The Church is not the True Church because ***I ***say it is. I don’t enter in anything. I am only worth anything because through the Church and in the Church I received the baptismal waters that made me a Son of God, Soldier of Christ and Slave of Mary. Otherwise I am cursed creature of God (cursed because the Original Sin is a curse upon us.) and am almost the same as an animal, if not because we are made in His Image.

I am joyful because despite our sins, God choses one who regardles of his personal holiness, he is holy because the power of God resides in him. One who’s word makes the world stop to listen regardless of the state the Church is in. Regardless of the Devil’s effort’s to destroy the Church, the Pope in these sinful times is still the one who’s word could stop a war if he truly wants to. You know who Israel called before the first cease fire?
Better yet, you know *who *caused the ceasefire? Israel had to call the Pope, because should his voice lash out with all it’s force, not even the immune Israel can continue.
It is his voice that the powerful communist world feared more than anything.

It is the voice which can bind things in Heaven and on Earth.

And yes, I am proud of that. I give glory because of that.

You see him upclose and you could think he is a fragile man. Yes, his nature is the same as any man’s. But his force can make the world jump for joy, or cower in obedience.

God is with him. Who is against him, is against Him.

 

[rad314]

Pro Domina, jimmy –

Boys, boys, boys! C’mon, according to your profiles, you’re both Catholic.

 

[JohnVIII]

No my friend, lets not enter this path because the reason the EO does not accept the Pope is called PRIDE.

Is there only one true way to “accept the Pope”? I am “EO” and I DO accept the Pope; not the way present day Roman Catholic does, but rather the way the office of the Pope was fully explained by Saint Pope Gregory the Great. My love is for the truth. It is clear that the Pope is the source of unity for the priesthood. But, I see no proof that he is infallible; and neither did Saint Pope Gregory the Great.

This thread should have a simple answer. If there is a higher authority than the Pope then that authority can excommunicate the Pope. If there is no authority higher than the Pope than only the Pope could excommunicate himself. All you have to do is determine what is the highest authority in the Church and you have the answer.

 

[Pro_Domina]

But I think the original poster deserves an answer to his question. “Can the Pope be excommunicated?” Absolutely! By incurring an automatic excommunication. Heresy, schism, and apostasy are not the only ways to incur an automatic excommunication. See canons 1367, 1370, 1378, 1388, and 1398.

(Unless someone can prove [as opposed to opine] that the pope is exempt from canon law.)

Referring to Fr. Harrison’s article again, his subsequent acts would be illicit but valid. I don’t see a clear way, short of resignation or death, for him to lose his office, however. Perhaps if he declared the sentence of excommunication upon himself? If that’s possible. If it is, and he did that, then maybe under other cited canons he would lose his authority.

If this is the line of thought you want to take

(which like I mentioned earlier, is not the real discusion. I believe the concept of a pope ceasing to be pope without death or resignation is a thing only in another Pentecost, and then deep into its fruits can theologans truly discuss the thing.)

then it is not a thing of whether the Pope is excempt from cannon law. Cannon Law’s force comes from the Pope himself. If the pope deciedes that tommorow that any priest could get married or take a million dollars in stipend, it is said and done in regards to cannon law.

The thing is whether he, upon commiting a crime exempts himself from the law. And then, the law condemns with the force of an authority. In the same instant can the authority condemn and lose its authority? If the pope who commits a excommunicable crime without suspending the law for himself, sure.