Can the Pope be excommunicated?

[mardukm]

Dear ajprc,

In 1054, Pope Leo IX was getting on the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius’ nerves and Patriarch Cerularius was getting on Pope Leo’s nerves (or maybe they were just doctrinal disputes). So they excommunicated each other! I know the Pope can excommunicate another bishop (Marcel Lefebvre) but can a bishop excommunicate the Pope? I would think you’d need a majority of the bishops to excommunicate the Pope.

According to Catholic Tradition, no bishop can excommunicate another bishop. Since the Pope is a bishop, he cannot excommunicate another bishop, nor can another bishop excommunicate him.

Bishops are excommunicated by the Law itself, i.e. by a latae sententiae excommunication.

The statement that “the Pope excommunicates Bishop so-and-so” is not entirely accurate. When someone says that “the Pope excommunicates Bishop so-and-so,” what actually happens is that the Bishop has incurred a latae sententiae excommunication, but it is within the power of the Pope as his superior (according to divine and canon law) to determine both the extent and penalties of that excommunication, as well as the power to lift that excommunication.

As far as a bishop excommunicating the Pope, the Traditional Catholic position is that the Pope incurs a latae sententiae excommunication only for heresy. According to this Tradition, a Pope who is a public heretic is no longer Catholic, and therefore no longer the Pope. At best, bishops can juridically determine if the Pope is espousing heresy, but they cannot pronounce a sentence on him. It is by virtue of the law itself that the Pope becomes excommunicated. There is an interesting “balance” in this matter. While it is true that the conditions under which the Pope incurs a latae sententiae excommunication is narrower than for other bishops, the flip side of the matter is that whereas a bishop has the opportunity to be reinstated to his position/rank/honor by the Pope, since no bishop is the Pope’s superior (according to divine and canon law), then a Pope can never be reinstated after he has lost his position/rank/honor. A Pope can certainly confess and be received back into the Church, but it is doubtful he will ever have the honor of bishop again. As the saying goes, it is lonely at the top.

In all cases, according to the most ancient canon laws, no bishop can incur a canonical penalty without first having the opportunity to either retract his error or be heard at trial. So, contrary to the exaggerations of some (not saying anyone in this thread has suggested it), the Pope can’t just go around excommunicating bishops at his mere discretion, will or pleasure.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

The Pope is above Canon Law. So he cannot be excommunicated latae sentencae. He is the final interpreter of Canon Law, therefore all he has to do is interpret the situation in a way that conforms to the law, or make the law not applicable to him or the situation at all. I’m not suggesting that the Pope will be dishonest in doing so. I’m just saying that his authority is such.

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

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

Blessings,
Marduk

But excommunication is more of a canonical disciplinary act rather than a spiritual one, is it not? Yes the Pope can commit sin and separate from God this way. But Canon Law cannot excommunicate him i that sense.

 

[Aramis]

So they’re not really excommunicating just the Pope, but everyone in communion with him.

It’s called a “Formal act of schism”… and has the effect of a Latæ sententiæ excommunication reserved to the Pope…

 

[Aramis]

But excommunication is more of a canonical disciplinary act rather than a spiritual one, is it not? Yes the Pope can commit sin and separate from God this way. But Canon Law cannot excommunicate him i that sense.

But for the Pope to sin in such a way as to be removed from the church would require the grand synod as a whole reject him. Which hasn’t happened in several centuries. And when it has, the popes resigned, and a successor was chosen.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

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

If you mean an Ecumenical Council, it’s always been that way, so I don’t know what you mean by “modern times.” According to the principle of Apostolic Canon 34, any body of bishops cannot act without the consent of the head on a matter of importance for the entire Church. Those EO who object to the necessity of papal consent for an Ecumenical Council demonstrate the novelty of the Low Petrine view, which is inherently opposed to the principle of the ancient Apostolic Canon 34.

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

Actually it has been the ancient Tradition of the Church that the head bishop calls a Council, caeseropapistic times notwithstanding.

he has a line item veto on any findings of a council

In a sense, this is true. On a matter that involves the entire Church, yes, Apostolic Canon 34 justifies this position. What you don’t take into account is the fact that our Canon law also affirms that in any legislative body, the confirming authority is REQUIRED to grant confirmation if the rest of the body unanimously approves a matter. The Catholic standard is thoroughly patristic. It is the Low Petrine position of many modern EO that the approval of the head bishop is not required that is the novel error.

and he has the last word on any question which may come up on any church matter.

That is false. On a matter that involves the ENTIRE Church, the Pope has the last word only insofar as the Apostolic Canon affirms that his consent is required. But, as indicated above, this consent is also required to be given if the rest of the bishops give a unanimous decision on a matter. Further, according to the most ancient canon laws, the Pope is the court of final appeal when a matter is appealed to him. But on an internal matter of any particular sui juris Patriarchal or Major Archepiscopal Church, the Synod has the final word.

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

This is false. The collegial authority of the body of bishops united with its head is also the subject of Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church, not just the Pope alone.

So essentially no, these days he cannot be removed from office against his will and he cannot be expelled from the church for any reason unless he himself agrees.

This is false, as explained in the previous posts.

With so many misconceptions about the Catholic Church, it’s almost understandable why you left her. Catholics should be careful not to be fooled by such misconceptions, whether they come from within the Catholic Church (usually from Absolutist Petrine advocates) or without.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

But excommunication is more of a canonical disciplinary act rather than a spiritual one, is it not? Yes the Pope can commit sin and separate from God this way. But Canon Law cannot excommunicate him i that sense.

Excommunication means one is separated from the Church, that’s all. The Church affirms that some offenses are so grievous or grievous enough that the act itself is sufficient to determine that the perpetrator has separated him/herself from the Church, and no other formal determination is necessary. This is known as a latae sententiae excommunication (which you already know), and normally apply to offenses against Divine Law. Other offenses are not of the same magnitude or in a “gray area” - these require juridical determination on a case-by-case basis and are known as ferendae sententiae excommunication, and normally apply to offenses against ecclesiastical law.

You have to remember that Canon Law is not merely ecclesiastical. Much of Canon Law is directly based on Divine Law.

Now, aside from excommunication itself, there are also penalties attached to the excommunication. The nature and extent of such penalties are always determined by the Church, and hence ecclesiastical by nature. Now, deposition is one of the possible penalties of an excommunication, and not the excommunication itself.

So, the matter devolves to two separate issues. Whether the Pope can be excommunicated is a separate issue from whether a Pope can be deposed, and I think perhaps you might be confusing the two concepts. Can the Pope be excommunicated? The answer to that is always “yes,” and he can be excommunicated by latae sententiae excommunication. Can the Pope be deposed? That is another matter altogether.

According to a solid Catholic Tradition, if the Pope is no longer Catholic, then he is de facto no longer Pope. But is he de jure no longer Pope? There is no solid answer, for the plain fact that there is no instance in Sacred Tradition when this has occurred. So there is no justification for holding a dogmatic position that a Pope can be deposed. What we do see in history is that the Church has put pressure on a Pope to resign his office. We as Catholics have supreme trust in our Lord Who promised to preserve His Church, that when a time comes that this is required, God Himself will somehow bring it about.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Marduk thinks what I have posted is false.

Do you other Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics think so too?

Canon law is codified by the bishop of Rome, and in modern times the Pope has to approve of anything a Council decides. In fact these days only the bishop of Rome can call a council, 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.

In the modern church there is no higher authority than the bishop of Rome. So essentially no, these days he cannot be removed from office against his will and he cannot be expelled from the church for any reason unless he himself agrees.

 

[ready]

This thread makes me wonder about something else. If a bishop or cardinal is a Freemason, does this automatically excommunicate him, though he may still continue to hold his position in office?

 

[tdgesq]

Marduk thinks what I have posted is false.

Do you other Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics think so too?

Canon law is codified by the bishop of Rome, and in modern times the Pope has to approve of anything a Council decides. In fact these days only the bishop of Rome can call a council, 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.

In the modern church there is no higher authority than the bishop of Rome. So essentially no, these days he cannot be removed from office against his will and he cannot be expelled from the church for any reason unless he himself agrees.

Then propose how the bishop of Rome could be deposed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Marduk thinks what I have posted is false.

Well, I did not disagree with EVERYTHING you wrote.

I agreed with some of it, and a lot of it required clarification. Most of it required not just clarification, but correction as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Excommunication means one is separated from the Church, that’s all. The Church affirms that some offenses are so grievous or grievous enough that the act itself is sufficient to determine that the perpetrator has separated him/herself from the Church, and no other formal determination is necessary. This is known as a latae sententiae excommunication (which you already know), and normally apply to offenses against Divine Law. Other offenses are not of the same magnitude or in a “gray area” - these require juridical determination on a case-by-case basis and are known as ferendae sententiae excommunication, and normally apply to offenses against ecclesiastical law.

You have to remember that Canon Law is not merely ecclesiastical. Much of Canon Law is directly based on Divine Law.

Now, aside from excommunication itself, there are also penalties attached to the excommunication. The nature and extent of such penalties are always determined by the Church, and hence ecclesiastical by nature. Now, deposition is one of the possible penalties of an excommunication, and not the excommunication itself.

So, the matter devolves to two separate issues. Whether the Pope can be excommunicated is a separate issue from whether a Pope can be deposed, and I think perhaps you might be confusing the two concepts. Can the Pope be excommunicated? The answer to that is always “yes,” and he can be excommunicated by latae sententiae excommunication. Can the Pope be deposed? That is another matter altogether.

According to a solid Catholic Tradition, if the Pope is no longer Catholic, then he is de facto no longer Pope. But is he de jure no longer Pope? There is no solid answer, for the plain fact that there is no instance in Sacred Tradition when this has occurred. So there is no justification for holding a dogmatic position that a Pope can be deposed. What we do see in history is that the Church has put pressure on a Pope to resign his office. We as Catholics have supreme trust in our Lord Who promised to preserve His Church, that when a time comes that this is required, God Himself will somehow bring it about.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, I agree that by the meaning of the term itself that excommunication happens everytime we sin. Every “mortal sin” by definition excommunicates us. But that is not how I believe the canonical definition of excommunication is.

I’m not talking about the spiritual reality but the legal definition of excommunication. I’ve never heard someone who divorced and has remarried as excommunicated. Only as living in sin.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ConstantineTG,

Well, I agree that by the meaning of the term itself that excommunication happens everytime we sin. Every “mortal sin” by definition excommunicates us. But that is not how I believe the canonical definition of excommunication is.

I’m not talking about the spiritual reality but the legal definition of excommunication. I’ve never heard someone who divorced and has remarried as excommunicated. Only as living in sin.

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

 

[puzzleannie]

InI would think you’d need a majority of the bishops to excommunicate the Pope.

no authority on earth can excommunicate a pope, depose him, fire him, demote him or in any way at all alter his call to office through the Holy Spirit.

 

[ajpirc]

ferendae sententiae

Definition please

 

[antonivs]

Definition please

"Ferendae sententiae" means "sentence to be passed" and refers to excommunications that are imposed by an ecclesiastical authority (Bishop, Cardinal, Pope).

 

[ajpirc]

“Ferendae sententiae” means “sentence to be passed” and refers to excommunications that are imposed by an ecclesiastical authority (Bishop, Cardinal, Pope).

Thanks.

 

[Hesychios]

Then propose how the bishop of Rome could be deposed.

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

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

 

[mardukm]

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

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

But, brother Michael, what you say here is not true. Much of Canon Law is based on Divine Law, and the Pope has absolutely no authority to change Divine Law. If the Pope transgresses a Divine Law, particularly by espousing heresy, then he will be excommunicated latae sententiae. It is the Divine Law itself that judges him.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ajpirc]

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