How a Pope ceases to be Pope

[EZweber]

I have ran into this issue several times on these forums, but it has never seemed to be cleared up, so I am bringing it up again. My current stance is that the only ways a Pope can leave his office are: A) death B) resignation C) tacit resignation by fundamental disbelief in the office of bishop, in which case the powers of the Papacy are removed by a lack of belief in them… maybe and theoretical. Any (name removed by moderator)ut?

 

[c1949]

I read someplace that if a pope committed some heresy, then he would no longer be the pope – because a pope cannot commit heresy. But, popes have been condemned for heresy, somehow, without breaking the track record of popes never having committed heresy – if that makes any sense.

 

[Beryllos]

A and B are objective and indisputable. C is not.

 

[thistle]

am bringing it up again. My current stance is that the only ways a Pope can leave his office are: A) death B) resignation C) tacit resignation by fundamental disbelief in the office of bishop, in which case the powers of the Papacy are removed by a lack of belief in them… maybe and theoretical. Any (name removed by moderator)ut?

There is nothing unclear about this. A Pope is no longer the Pope if he resigns or dies. Nothing else can remove him even if he was the worst Pope in history.

 

[Genesis315]

C) tacit resignation by fundamental disbelief in the office of bishop

Tacit resignation would be through defection from the Church through heresy or apostasy (not only due to beliefs related to the office of bishop).

 

[commenter]

EZweber:

C) tacit resignation by fundamental disbelief in the office of bishop

Tacit resignation would be through defection from the Church through heresy or apostasy (not only due to beliefs related to the office of bishop).

If a pope teaches something on Faith and Morals definitively, he is protected from heresy. So your case is apparently not applicable. Who, or what group of people, would be more protected than the pope, and how would you declare a consensus was reached, anyway? (51 percent? 100 percent?)
Who could publicly make that determination (and I don’t mean websites).

Now in the past, dead popes have been condemned for not refuting heresy, or for not sufficiently affirming the clear doctrine, when (in hindsight) it obviously needed to be affirmed. That’s different.

 

[EZweber]

Tacit resignation would be through defection from the Church through heresy or apostasy (not only due to beliefs related to the office of bishop).

If that is true, then a Pope could resign… accidentally?

 

[Genesis315]

A Pope declaring an erroneous belief to be held by the entire Church is different from the Pope personally defecting from the Church. The Pope can sin–including the sins of separation–like anyone else. A Pope who defected through heresy would cease to be Pope.

The Church “is an entity with visible delineation” (Lumen Gentium 8) and the Pope is its “visible head” (Lumen Gentium 18) and “visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium 23). Finally, “[t]he bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion” (Lumen Gentium 14).

Anyone who breaks those visible bonds ceases to be a visible member of the Church–and that includes the preeminent visible member, the visible head.

As an extreme example, if the Pope were to formally convert to Islam or Hinduism or Lutheranism, there would be no controversy–even without an explicit resignation, all would agree that since the prior one visibly left the Church, the visible Church would need to elect a new visible head.

Since the primacy is part of the permanent, divine constitution of the Church, the Church by divine law has “perpetual successors in the primacy” (Pastor Aeternus, II, 5). The Church, by its very nature, cannot choose to proceed without a visible head (see errors 27-29 of John Hus, definitively condemned by the Council of Constance).

Because of this, the Church, with divine assistance if necessary, always retains the power to recognize when she is deprived of her head and the power to replace her head (see next post for more on this). The Church must accurately recognize when a Pope has died, and even with a resignation, the Church must recognize it as having actually, validly been made and proceed to a new election. The Church makes a “judgment” that the Pope has died or that the Pope has resigned. Why would it be any different if the Pope tacitly resigns by breaking the bonds of visible unity with the Church?

This power resides “formally” in the Church of Rome, which itself holds the primacy over all the other Churches, and in practice is carried out by certain officers of that Church defined by law (the Cardinals, for example, are all clergy of Rome, even those who also govern Sees outside Rome). By necessity this may also devolve to the entire episcopate as representative of the universal Church, as happened at the Council of Constance.

The body of the episcopate would not err in this matter. More on this in my next post.

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

The validity of a Pope is a dogmatic fact (cf. CDF, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profesio Fidei 11). The reasoning for this is explained well below:

Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.

So to sum up, the Church would recognize that she needs a new visible head the same way she does in any case where is she is deprived of one. She will not proceed without a head or to follow as her head someone who is not.

 

[EZweber]

But how would you treat a Pope who fell into heresy without realizing it? Would he be “resigning” too?

 

[TomH1]

I think this is one of those questions to which there is no clear answer. It is being asked quite a lot about the current pope. The most obvious, and usual, way a papacy ends is the pope dies. As we have seen with Benedict XVI a pope can resign. This is not a common occurrence.

Can a pope cease to be the pope by an act of heresy? This is where there is a lack of agreement. It is clear that no one can remove a pope. Not even an ecumenical council, can remove a pope. We also have the assurance that a pope will not err when giving a definitive teaching on matters of faith and morals. So, it is not at all clear cut whether a pope could make himself not the pope by an act of heresy.

 

[Genesis315]

The heresy that breaks the visible bonds with the Church must be manifest–it must be visible. Again, an obvious example is by “public profession,” like a formal conversion to, say, the Lutheran Church. But in general there must be visibly manifested that willful opposition to the faith of the Catholic Church. Accidentally saying or doing something wrong is not heresy–heresy doesn’t happen by accident.

And yes, someone could think he is Pope when he actually isn’t. The antipopes of the 15th century John XXIII and especially Benedict XIII certainly thought they were Popes (they thought their elections were valid, but they weren’t)–but the episcopate at the Council of Constance judged them to not be, judged the resignation of Gregory XII to be valid, and elected a new Pope (Martin V).

The same would happen if a man who once was Pope ceased to be so. That’s not to say things wouldn’t get messy for a while.

 

[EZweber]

But if it has to be wilful heresy, who is to judge whether the Pope is a wilful heretic? He’s not going to admit it. Also, it wouldn’t really be a resignation.

 

[Genesis315]

That’s why it’s called “tacit.” It has effect by operation of law, rather than by being directly expressed.

Who judges that a Pope has died or has resigned? Who judges that the election of a Pope is valid? Why would the Church being without a head due to a Pope’s defection from the Church be any different?

I’m sure if there were ever a Pope who committed such an act, he would likely not go quietly. May God forbid it to ever happen.

But the Church of Rome, which is itself indefectible by the Lord’s promise (cf. Pope St. Agatho’s dogmatic letter; also Pope Sixtus IV, Licet Ia, condemning the contrary error; etc.), would always be on the right side should any schisms result.

 

[EZweber]

But who decides if the Pope is wilful? No one has that authority!

 

[thistle]

That’s why it’s called “tacit.” It has effect by operation of law, rather than by being directly expressed.

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.

 

[Genesis315]

But who decides if the Pope is wilful? No one has that authority!

Again, the same could be said about Pope Benedict’s resignation. It also had to be willful, of his own free will. There are some writers out there who say it wasn’t and that he is still Pope. Who judges? How was the determination made that we actually needed to elect a new Pope and that Pope Francis was indeed validly elected?

Who judges whether the See is vacant in any case that it is? Who judges whether the Pope is actually dead? What the answer is in those cases is the answer in this one.

From my earlier post:

Me:

This power resides “formally” in the Church of Rome, which itself holds the primacy over all the other Churches, and in practice is carried out by certain officers of that Church defined by law (the Cardinals, for example, are all clergy of Rome, even those who also govern Sees outside Rome). By necessity this may also devolve to the entire episcopate as representative of the universal Church, as happened at the Council of Constance.

In addition, after an election, the acceptance of it by the whole Church is additional evidence of its validity (see my earlier post on this).

No juridical judgment or deposition is taking place. No authority is being exercised over a Pope. It is merely the Church recognizing her need to restore her head, as she does every time she is deprived of one (and must do by divine ordinance and assistance every time she is deprived of one).

 

[EZweber]

But in the case of Pope (Emeritus) Benedict there was no judgement of the Pope. It was simply said that he had resigned. There is no penalty administered. It was not a question of the integrity or orthodoxy of the Pope, which is exactly what your position is taking.

 

[EZweber]

I also wonder how you can respond to Thistle.

 

[commenter]

The heresy that breaks the visible bonds with the Church must be manifest–it must be visible

Who, exactly, measures and publicly determines something to be heresy, and that visible bonds are broken?

Most posters seem to rely on websites(!)

If you trust websites on the Left, then Paul 6 was wildly out of touch with the sense of the Church on Humanae Vitae. Furthermore, JP 2 was using faulty theology on many points, like ordination of women, homosexual acts, etc, so that nothing they taught is infallible or reliable. They also cite prominent theologians to reject Pius 10, 11, 12, in terms of theology.

Essentially it is the far Right and far Left that claims the “sense of the Church as a whole” argument to reach wildly contradictory conclusions, and justify dissent against the living Magisterium. BTW, the Left cites history, too.