How a Pope ceases to be Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter EZweber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes a website with no Church approval at all posts a quote from an apparently approved Church document, which invariably calls into question the authority of the current pope and bishops, and invariably flatters the reader.
Problems:
  • There is a reason why that website has no Church approval.
  • The paragraphs are taken out of context from some longer document. We don’t know the context, the purpose of it, and we don’t know what paragraphs were omitted.
  • We don’t know what other more authoritative documents may have been skipped over.
  • So when you see something apparently authoritative quoted in OnePeterFive, (or NCRonline) remember who is doing the cut and paste.
 
Last edited:
And yet the Church never recognized them as having ceased to be Pope until their deaths. See the passage from the manual in my earlier post–various Popes have been alleged to have been not Popes at all for various reasons (usually something funky with their election), but their reception as valid by the Church, in particular in the persons of the college of bishops, guarantees their validity. The episcopate not receiving them would says something too. If the conditions for a separation from heresy were met, the Holy Spirit ensures that reception will not be there (as I mentioned before, it could get messy as it has in the past when the validity of a Pope received more widespread doubt).

It is there, so therefore we don’t have that problem right now, and hopefully we never will.

As I have posted over and over in this thread, if the Church became deprived of her head in whatever way, she will recognize it and proceed to restore her head as she has done 265 times already.
 
Last edited:
A pope cannot be pope if he resigns from office of his own free will or he dies. The papacy cannot be taken from him.
 
If anyone is interested, here is an interesting read on this topic published in 1961 by a priest and canon lawyer who later became the Bishop of Syracuse, NY (from 1995 to 2009, he died in 2017):

“Papal Immunity and Liability in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists”

books.google.com

Papal Immunity and Liability in the Writings of the Medieval Canonists

The interest in the history of the development of canon law has been focused primarily on the writings of the large body of canonist who were active from the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries. Within this period, the writings of the canonist who lived in the century between Gratian and...
books.google.com
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the only one with authority over the pope is Jesus, so if a pope freely chooses to resign, then, by his own choice he is no longer pope. But if he does not resign, then he is still the pope. I understand that a heretic pope can only be officially declared to be a heretic after his death. A heretic pope is highly unusual, but we have the case of the Pope Honorius I (d. 638 A.D.)(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm) who died unrepentant of his heresy. After death he was then declared heretic and anathema, and same for an antipope, I suppose. None of these are declared until after death. Meanwhile, a reigning pope is the pope no matter what he says or does, as far as I can tell. But I think it important to remember that our church is not any “pope” ‘s church, but it is Jesus’ Church, and while we owe allegiance to the authority of His Church, it is Jesus above all Whom we must never disobey. (In the case there were ever any conflict in allegiance).
 
I agree with most of what you said exept that Honorius I was condemned for heresy. He was condemned for a failure to teach regarding the Monolethite heresy (I think I spelled it right), which believed that Christ had only one will. However he never endorsed the heresy, either officially or personally. He simply refused to issue a definite teaching when one was badly needed.
 
Genesis315 said:
A Pope declaring an erroneous belief to be held by the entire Church
Click to expand...
Impossible, the Holy Spirit prevents him from doing so.

“even with a resignation, the Church must recognize it as having actually, validly been made”

Not according to Cannon law: 333.2 says " but not that it is accepted by anyone."
 
Now that you mention it, yes, my husband mentions that it was more like he just didn’t want to say one way or the other, and basically said “either” - in his mind, to keep the peace. A failure to teach - really, that should be considered hearsay on lower levels than Pope. I remember converting in 2000 and being so surprised that at Mass, priest NEVER mentioned chastity of any kind at all in their sermons. Not ever. Something is seriously wrong with that.
 
AHapka:, you wrote: “Impossible, the Holy Spirit prevents him from doing so.” I don’t think so. I think they are surely showered with graces not to speak error, but a pope is still a man - and no god-man! I do not see it written anywhere that a pope is a supernatural man who is no longer subject to free will and therefore ONLY does God’s will and not his own, all the time. Since clearly Cardinals and super-Cardinals can lack supernatural faith, it certainly must be possible a pope might. Well, history bears that out!

I think the only place where a pope is infallible in doing only God’s will is when they teach “ex cathedra” on faith or morals. I am thinking of the bad popes who ALMOST, but never did, teach error ex cathedra. They intended to, but either changed their mind or DIED first. Otherwise, a pope is still a man, and we all have free will.

But there is not much ex cathedra speaking in recent decades. Not in my lifetime. The last time was nearly SEVENTY years ago, in 1950, re: the Assumption of Mary. And the time before that was was 1870!
 
Last edited:
You are referring to the fairly rare Extraordinary Magisterium. But there also is the Ordinary Magisterium.
 
No one has the ability to declare it authoritatively, but we can come to provisional conclusions about it.
 
You are correct. Honorious failed to oppose a heresy (of someone else) and many people think he should have. But the popes are not mandated by infallibility to speak the truth. They can remain silent, even if other people think this is imprudent.
 
You misunderstand what genesis is saying.

He is not saying that it is possible for a Pope to declare an erroneous belief to be held by the Church.

Nor is he saying that the validity of a Pope’s resignation relies on its acceptance by the Church.
 
Pope John XXII (22) publicly taught that the souls of the just who died in the state of sanctifying grace and had no temporal punishment due to sin did not go directly to Heaven but had to wait until Judgement Day. He was publicly admonished by theologians that the just souls who had no temporal punishment due to sin did go directly to Heaven. He recanted his errors on his deathbed.

Because of that, no pope took the name John until Cardinal Roncalli was elected in 1958 and took the name John XXIII (23). It was actually a shock to some that he took the name “John”.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
Pope John XXII (22) publicly taught that the souls of the just who died in the state of sanctifying grace and had no temporal punishment due to sin did not go directly to Heaven but had to wait until Judgement Day. He was publicly admonished by theologians that the just souls who had no temporal punishment due to sin did go directly to Heaven. He recanted his errors on his deathbed.

Because of that, no pope took the name John until Cardinal Roncalli was elected in 1958 and took the name John XXIII (23). It was actually a shock to some that he took the name “John”.
Click to expand...
John XXII held an opinion on a topic that had not been defined doctrinal prior to, or during his reign. Other persons held different opinions, as they had every right to do.

After his reign, his successor formally defined the doctrine. In your post, the last sentence of your first paragraph, and your second paragraph, tend to weaken your argument. Whenever someone cites deathbed recantation, lots of people roll their eyes.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
40.png
Genesis315:
That’s why it’s called “tacit.” It has effect by operation of law, rather than by being directly expressed.
Click to expand...
The only law that counts is Canon Law. I would be interested if you would direct me to the part in canon law that supports what you are saying.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see a response to this also.
If a person believes that ecclesial laws exist and can be broken, then…canon law.
You either abide by law or you don’t.
 
Monotheletism is the heresy that stated that Christ had only one will. The Catholic Faith is that Christ has two wills and two natures, Divine and human, in the unity of His Divine Person, i.e. the Second Person of the All-Holy, Consubtantial and Undivided Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top