Can the Pope be excommunicated?

[Biedrik]

So what’s the purpose of ferendae sententiae if someone is already excommunicated latae sententiae?

Not all offenses incur a latae sententiae excommunication. Ferendae setentiae is there for when a bishop sees need to excommunicate due to such an offense.

 

[ajpirc]

Not all offenses incur a latae sententiae excommunication. Ferendae setentiae is there for when a bishop sees need to excommunicate due to such an offense.

Could you give an example?

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

The Pope is not above Divine Law. So the Pope can incur a latae sententiae excommunication for heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

How is this possible in the context of papal infallability?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

How is this possible in the context of papal infallability?

“Papal infallibility” does not protect the Pope’s personal beliefs, but the Church’s public teaching. That is the purpose of infallibility - period - to protect and preserve the public teaching/Faith of the CHURCH.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Could you give an example?

Suppose a person steals something. That normally does not incur excommunication. But what if the person causes a public scandal for the Church due to his continual stealing? The local bishop could decide to impose a ferendae sententiae excommunication.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

The canonical definition of excommunication as the Catholic Church holds today rests only in the distinction between latae sententiae excommunication and ferendae sententiae excommunication. The penalites attached to these excommunications is a separate matter.

The spiritual meaning of excommunication, as you call it, is equivalent to latae sententiae excommunication.

The Church used to have 4 categories of excommunication:
(1) Minor Excommunication; (2) Major Excommunication; (3) Anathema; (4) Anathema Maranatha.

This distinction is no longer utilized. Today, “excommunication” is distinguished according to whether it is latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae, and, secondarily, according ot the penalties established by the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

And they are juridical rather than spiritual. For example. murder doesn’t carry an automatic excommunication. But by the act itself one separates himself from the Church. Whereas abortion does, for the reason that many believe its not a sin, thus the Church had to impose a juridical penalty to enforce Divine Law in a more tangible manner.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Don,

“Papal infallibility” does not protect the Pope’s personal beliefs, but the Church’s public teaching. That is the purpose of infallibility - period - to protect and preserve the public teaching/Faith of the CHURCH.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

HHHHHMMMMMM…so now it has shifted down to “to protect and preserve the public teaching/Faith of the CHURCH.” tell me if I am reading you write here before I go any further on this with you…do you mean by this, that, the public teaching/faith of the church is protected even if the Pope teaches heresy? OR, do you mean that the Pope CANNOT teach hersies to the public/faith of the church? even if he beleived in a heresy

 

[ajpirc]

HHHHHMMMMMM…so now it has shifted down to “to protect and preserve the public teaching/Faith of the CHURCH.” tell me if I am reading you write here before I go any further on this with you…do you mean by this, that, the public teaching/faith of the church is protected even if the Pope teaches heresy? OR, do you mean that the Pope CANNOT teach hersies to the public/faith of the church? even if he beleived in a heresy

If the Pope is speaking in an encyclical or something of that matter where he is not addressing the entire Flock, then it isn’t infallible. But, when he is speaking ex cathedra as the supreme head and teacher of the Church’s faith to the entire flock, he is speaking infallibly.

 

[Ignatios]

If the Pope is speaking in an encyclical or something of that matter where he is not addressing the entire Flock, then it isn’t infallible. But, when he is speaking ex cathedra as the supreme head and teacher of the Church’s faith to the entire flock, he is speaking infallibly.

That is not what I was trying to understand from Marduk, … but since you mentioned the above, let me ask you this, Does the Lord Holy Spirit ††† ( may GOD forgive us from such talk but we speak not because we beleive in such things but only to clearify ) allows the Pope to make in error in teaching a particular church but does not allow it when it is being taught to the universal church?
GOD bless.

 

[ajpirc]

That is not what I was trying to understand from Marduk, … but since you mentioned the above, let me ask you this, Does the Lord Holy Spirit ††† ( may GOD forgive us from such talk but we speak not because we beleive in such things but only to clearify ) allows the Pope to make in error in teaching a particular church but does not allow it when it is being taught to the universal church?
GOD bless.

The Holy Spirit only and always protects the word of the Holy Father when speaking on faith or morals from the chair of Peter. The Holy Spirit will not protect his word when he is not speaking on faith or morals or if he is not speaking ex cathedra.

So yes. Because the Pope isn’t speaking as the Universal Teacher for the Church, the Pope can make a fallible statement. It is not because the Holy Spirit is letting him teach error on purpose, it’s because the Holy Spirit isn’t protecting him against error in the first place. Does that make any sense? I hope it helped.

Also, I have never heard someone refer to the Holy Spirit as “Lord Holy Spirit,” I honor you for that phrase.

 

[Ignatios]

The Holy Spirit only and always protects the word of the Holy Father when speaking on faith or morals from the chair of Peter. The Holy Spirit will not protect his word when he is not speaking on faith or morals or if he is not speaking ex cathedra.

So yes. Because the Pope isn’t speaking as the Universal Teacher for the Church, the Pope can make a fallible statement. It is not because the Holy Spirit is letting him teach error on purpose, it’s because the Holy Spirit isn’t protecting him against error in the first place. Does that make any sense? I hope it helped.

Also, I have never heard someone refer to the Holy Spirit as “Lord Holy Spirit,” I honor you for that phrase.

Okay then, we are in agreement that the Pope can/may teach error when he is teaching a particular church but not the whole church, but now this brings many things to mind, some of, what happened to the Apostolic teaching? or do you think is it that the Lord acts only when it is the universal church involved but not a portion of it, even one person? and when we hear his words " Luke 15:4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?" this infallability understanding becomes a mind boggling.

Tell you the truth, to me it seems that this “infallability dogma” is to protect the pope more than protecting the Dogmas.

OOO I thank you for honoring me, may GOD Bless you abundantly with HIS Grace, Love and Mercy, but the truth is that those words are not mine, I only repeated them from the Original Nicene Creed and the some of the Holy Fathers of the Church.

GOD bless.

 

[tdgesq]

]Canon law is codified by the bishop of Rome

This is true, with the assistance of the Curia.

and in modern times the Pope has to approve of anything a Council decides.

This is not true. A council can decide something without the approval of the Pope, although it does have bearing on the ecumenical nature of the council.

In fact these days only the bishop of Rome can call a council

This is true if you mean an ecumenical council. Other non-plenary councils can be called without the Pope. Even the Orthodox have standards for who can call an ecumenical council, but there aren’t any Roman emperors to be found.

he has a line item veto on any findings of a council and he has the last word on any question which may come up on any church matter.

While it is technically true that under certain circumstances the Pope could exercise this authority, it is also true that under other circumstances he could not. Practically it is not true.

In the modern church there is no higher authority than the bishop of Rome.

I would say true, but it was also the case in the ancient Church. So, false it is.

So essentially no, these days he cannot be removed from office against his will

He can be removed from his office by killing him, which has happened historically. While alive he can’t be legitimately deposed against his will. So I will say “true.”

and he cannot be expelled from the church for any reason unless he himself agrees.

He can be separated from the Church (excommunication), but he cannot be legitimately deposed. “True” on this one.

I did not suggest that the bishop of Rome can be deposed. I wrote that he controls the decision and the controls the canons.

Of course that is what you suggested, but as it turns out he can’t be deposed unless you kill him. Since you never suggested otherwise, I’m glad you agree with me on this.

Please reread what I wrote, would you agree that is what I wrote?

A poor choice of words. Did you get the response for which you were looking?

 

[mardukm]

so now it has shifted down to “to protect and preserve the public teaching/Faith of the CHURCH.”

What do you mean by “now”? That has always been the purpose of the infallibility given by God to his Church.

tell me if I am reading you write here before I go any further on this with you…do you mean by this, that, the public teaching/faith of the church is protected even if the Pope teaches heresy? OR, **do you mean that the Pope CANNOT teach hersies to the public/faith of the church? even if he beleived in a heresy **

The latter would be the correct understanding. It is not the individual belief of bishops or any single member of the Church that the charism of infallibility protects and preserves, but rather the public teaching/Faith of the Church, which is the Divine doctrines of God Himself. It is not inspiration, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

And they are juridical

Agree.

rather than spiritual.

Disagree. A latae sententiae excommunication has effect in the internal (i.e., spiritual) as well as external (i.e., ecclesiastical) forum.

For example. murder doesn’t carry an automatic excommunication. But by the act itself one separates himself from the Church. Whereas abortion does, for the reason that many believe its not a sin, thus the Church had to impose a juridical penalty to enforce Divine Law in a more tangible manner.

I’m not exactly sure what this has to do with the OP. We’re talking about latae sententiae excommunication for heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

This thread makes me wonder about something else. If a bishop or cardinal is a Freemason, does this automatically excommunicate him,

Yes.

though he may still continue to hold his position in office?

Yes. But if it became public knowledge, his superior would publicly declare the latae sententiae excommunication with appropriate penalties.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

What do you mean by “now”? That has always been the purpose of the infallibility given by God to his Church.

hhhhhhmmmmm… and now again Marduk try to shift down to infallibility of the church instead…MARDUK, your respond to dcointin was about the infallibility of the Pope and not about the infallibility of the church or the Ecumenical councils or … sheesh.

The latter would be the correct understanding. It is not the individual belief of bishops or any single member of the Church that the charism of infallibility protects and preserves, but rather the public teaching/Faith of the Church, which is the Divine doctrines of God Himself. It is not inspiration, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

So Marduk you agree that the Papal infallibility is about the pope that he cannot err when teaching the public/faith of the church, Marduk, I can give you a couple examples when popes did just that. you should know them.

 

[mardukm]

hhhhhhmmmmm… and now again Marduk try to shift down to infallibility of the church instead…MARDUK, your respond to dcointin was about the infallibility of the Pope and not about the infallibility of the church or the Ecumenical councils or … sheesh.

Why should one separate the infallibility of the Church from the infallibility of the Pope, or the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council? And why should the purpose of infallibility change, no matter what organ of the Church uses it? You’re creating an artifical false dichotomy in your own mind - that’s the source of your difficulty.

So Marduk you agree that the Papal infallibility is about the pope that he cannot err when teaching the public/faith of the church, Marduk, I can give you a couple examples when popes did just that. you should know them.

Perhaps you can provide the examples, because I’m not aware of an instance when a bishop of Rome ever proposed to the Church a heresy as the public teaching/Faith of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

Why should one separate the infallibility of the Church from the infallibility of the Pope, or the infallibility of the Ecumenical Council? And why should the purpose of infallibility change, no matter what organ of the Church uses it? You’re creating an artifical false dichotomy in your own mind - that’s the source of your difficulty.

The one who is separating the infallibility of the Church from the infallibility of the Pope is your own RCC, since they (RCC) teaches that the church cannot be infallibile without the consent of the pope or apart from the pope, where the pope do not need the consent of the church to be infallibile and it can be done apart from the church, so the artificial false dichotomy is in your own dogma of infallibility ( I will keep the false dichotomy of your mind out of this for now), since there is nothing in there of mine but of your own RCC :

**"The pope

Explanation of papal infallibility

The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). "**

…•the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.

And the list goes on.

If the infallibility of the church and of the E.C. and the Pope are equal then why what is good for the Pope is not good for the church OR the E.C. Now if this is not a false dichotomy then I don’t know what is.

Perhaps you can provide the examples, because I’m not aware of an instance when a bishop of Rome ever proposed to the Church a heresy as the public teaching/Faith of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Pope Vigilius was tacitly anathemized by the 5th Ecumenical Council, AND was excommunicated by several Western bishops AAAAAND he pleaded to the Ecumenical Patriachand to restore him back into communion, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumencial Council after his dogmatic letters were examined, a condemnation repeated by the Councils of Trullo (which explicitly stated he had taught heresy) PERIOD.

somehow we always find ourselves going back to these things

 

[Hesychios]

This is true, with the assistance of the Curia.

A curia is the secretarial staff of a bishop, it has no authority of it’s own and it can only speak in the name of the bishop. The bishop names his curia and delegates to it whatever functions it carries.

So what you are saying here is ‘The Pope and the Pope’.

This is not true. A council can decide something without the approval of the Pope, although it does have bearing on the ecumenical nature of the council.

What you are doing is spinning here.

Only the Pope can make anything a Catholic Council does or says valid. If he does not approve, it is nothing to the church.

This is true if you mean an ecumenical council.

I see you agree with me

… he has a line item veto on any findings of a council and he has the last word on any question which may come up on any church matter.

You will have to prove that there are circumstances where he cannot.

Simply refer to a canon and that will be fine.

He can be separated from the Church (excommunication), but he cannot be legitimately deposed.

What is the procedure for excommunication of a Pope? I am quite interested to see this.

I suppose you know of some canons that explain the procedure? I don’t know of any.

 

[dvdjs]

Simply refer to a canon and that will be fine.
…
I suppose you know of some canons that explain the procedure? I don’t know of any.

So legalistic.