How does one excommunicate a Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Pope can not be a heretic… never has been, never will be.

Pope Honorius agreed with Sergius (Patriarch of Constantanople at the time) that the expression “one will” could be used… Sergius carried this one step further: if one will, then one nature… and bang, right back to the heresy of Monophysitism.

Pope Honorius was not defining a dogma of the faith… and thus was not speaking infallibly.

Pope Honorius was not speaking as head of the Church … and thus was not speaking infallibly.

Pope Honorius was not speaking with a clear intention to bind the entire Church… and thus was not speaking infallibly.

Thank God that … YET AGAIN… the Roman position was able to correct YET ANOTHER heresy of Constantanople… and authentic Christology was preserved.

Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by the East AFTER his death as a political move… so I really don’t think this argument holds much water.

Peace.
‘One will’ is a heresy as well. It is irrelevant whether he taught two or one nature if he taught one will. The heresy is called monotheletism.

I don’t see what political move it was. It seems pretty clear that he was a heretic. Even Rome condemned him as a heretic.

Regarding the question of the OP. Honorius was not excommunicated. He was anathematized post-mortem. I don’t know if there is any historical precedence for excommunication of the pope(I wouldn’t be surprised) but there is no way within Roman Canon’s that allows for it. It is impossible according to the west considering that the pope is the highest authority, even higher than that of the council.
 
@jimmy:

Yes Pope Honorius was a heretic however some Catholics don’t understand that Popes can be heretics and are fallible people.
 
Could someone please post something from Canon Law that says the Pope cannot be excommunicated. I know they can post-mordem, however it seems if they lose the Catholic faith they could be.
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of Canon 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in Canon 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:
1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;
2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;
3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;
4/ a penal transfer to another office;
5/ dismissal from the clerical state.
 
Could someone please post something from Canon Law that says the Pope cannot be excommunicated. I know they can post-mordem, however it seems if they lose the Catholic faith they could be.
The question is, who is supposed to do it? The pope is the highest authority. He calls councils and disbands them and he resides over them. According to western theology the council is meaningless without the popes approval. Further, the pope is the interpreter of canon law. Take for example the fact that the pope modified the code of canons in 1983.
 
Not to stray off topic, but the fish eaters site is far and away not the best place to be getting information on the Church. By enlarge they reject Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. God bless.
Strange, isn’t it, that not one Pope since Pius X has been valid??? Such topics seem to be wishful thinking on the part of the disobedient.

Christ’s peace.
 
Could someone please post something from Canon Law that says the Pope cannot be excommunicated. I know they can post-mordem, however it seems if they lose the Catholic faith they could be.
I am still waiting for someone with canon law expertise to weigh in. I think that is the only way to answer such a question. All else is conjecture.
 
Strange, isn’t it, that not one Pope since Pius X has been valid??? Such topics seem to be wishful thinking on the part of the disobedient.

Christ’s peace.
I think they would say atleast up through Pius XII was valid. I don’t think there are any traditionalist groups that say Pius X was the last valid pope. The SSPX use Pius X as their patron I think because he was against modernism.
 
The question is, who is supposed to do it? The pope is the highest authority. He calls councils and disbands them and he resides over them. According to western theology the council is meaningless without the popes approval. Further, the pope is the interpreter of canon law. Take for example the fact that the pope modified the code of canons in 1983.
However I believe that if the Pope lost the Catholic faith, a Council or Synod could do this. Maybe if they had enough members. Regardless the next Pope could just excommunicate him.
 
I think they would say atleast up through Pius XII was valid. I don’t think there are any traditionalist groups that say Pius X was the last valid pope. The SSPX use Pius X as their patron I think because he was against modernism.
That is true, I believe Pope Benedict XVI to be valid…so I’m not schismatic.
 
However I believe that if the Pope lost the Catholic faith, a Council or Synod could do this. Maybe if they had enough members. Regardless the next Pope could just excommunicate him.
The thing is someone has to be able to declare him to have lost the faith. No bishop or priest loses his position simply by latae sententae excommunication. It is done by official action by the Church.
 
The thing is someone has to be able to declare him to have lost the faith. No bishop or priest loses his position simply by latae sententae excommunication. It is done by official action by the Church.
That is a very good point. However I still think that there may be some type of loophole to this. Look at the Great Western Schism that was solved by a council.
 
Alethiaphile;3594024:
Lets see.
  1. The essence/energies distinction is a GRAVE error that is either logically inconcistant or falls to ditheism!
  2. They are really Pelagians and you can see this in their denial of original sin!
  3. Because of their Pelagianism, they deny the wonderful doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
  4. They deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son even though Fathers taught that he did.
  5. The deny the rightful place of the Bishop of Rome as taught by the Fathers (I know that the EO churchs will perform acrobatics in an attempt ot explain this away).
  6. They deny the scriptural doctrine of Purgatory.
  7. They deny the Beatific Vision even though the Scriptures say that “We shall see him as he is” and that “we shall see him face to face.”
  8. They place such an emphasis on “mystery” that doctrine has almost no meaning (modernists do the same thing).
  9. They allow contraception.
  10. They allow divorce .
  11. Their Churches have become nothing more than places for ethnic studies as you pretty much have to give up any western cultural identity to become and EO.
  12. They are some of the most intense anti-Cathlics one can come accross.
  13. They have no place for great doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.
  14. They deny our God given reason so much so that they deny that we can know that God exists through the use of reason. This is the heresy of Fideism.
  15. They create charicatures and straw man arguements to insult Holy Mother Church.
  16. They promote Hesychast spirituality which borders on New Age.
  17. The Eastern Orthodox Concept of theosis borders on Pantheistic whereas the western concept of theosis does not.
    etc., etc., etc.
    Here is a link to an article that discusses some of the dangers that have infected Eastern Orthodoxy:
    christianorder.com/features.html
Well, you certainly make up in volume what you lack in accuracy. Actually, I was asking “HoldenCaulfield”.
Your entire list is nothing but simplistic distortions, and not worth responding to. Joe
 
Strange, isn’t it, that not one Pope since Pius X has been valid??? Such topics seem to be wishful thinking on the part of the disobedient.

Christ’s peace.
Fish Eaters is not a sedavacantist site. On the For Catholics page it explicitly displays encyclicals by Bl. Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.

If that is not what you wished to imply, then never mind 🙂
 
Good. They speak very well for themselves, as any Catholic should be able to tell.
And yet it somehow got past you?
Should you read my post, it might seem evident to you that I know of the site, have been to it, and have read enough of it to comment. Then again, perhaps it is easier to just click the reply button and type whatever comes to mind.
Why the anger and sarcasm? I’ve been respectful though I don’t hold your opinion on this issue. Do you treat everyone who disagrees with you with this type of immaturity? Would your behavior be representative of all cafeteria-Catholics?
Have you even read it? The work is satire, designed to expose modernist heresies.
I agree its satire. Most of the essays have the same sarcasm and abhorrence toward the authority of V2 as the “dictionary” does. I suppose the “Catholic” that created the website felt that the best way to lash out was to do so with sarcasm and satire. When you read them, your left feeling that the author actually believes that he knows better than the Church. It’s rather laughable really.
Would you like me to break this down for you, or do you see the satire? The “dictionary” is a mockery of the errors of dissent, not a statement of dissent in itself. Comprendes?
Actually, the “dictionary” is filled with sarcastic remarks about the New Mass, current Church terminology, and the post-Conciliar Church. The overall effect is one of encouraging Catholics to disregard the authority of the Church on these issues. Agnosco?
Oh, how clever. I note that you have seen fit to break out your AIM lingo and duck analogies. So very funny, yet ultimately not persuasive. Show me one error you find on the site - and this time actually read the articles. And try not to be so sophisticated next time… lolz u mite mak evry1 luk bad roflol XDXD
Am I speaking to a child? Try for a moment to be intelligent rather than combative, you may find that goes a long way toward fooling your readers into believing you have more than a single brain cell bouncing around between your ears. Do they not practice charity in the anti-Vatican II camps these days?
Still I will humor you least you feel I am ducking your challenge to provide examples:
fisheaters.com/TLMintroduction.html
TLM Introduction states:
"In this section, I focus solely on the traditional Latin Mass based on the Missal of 1962 which is used by most traditional priests (including the F.S.S.P. and the S.S.P.X.). After much study, I’ve come to the conclusion that, validity issues aside, the “Novus Ordo Mass” is tragically flawed, something my instincts and “common sense” have told me since I was a child. The very name of this Mass – “Novus Ordo,” i.e., “New Order” – should make anyone with a true Catholic nature cringe, and its effects are so incredibly sad it almost hurts to think about it. It has turned out to be a “New Mass” for a “New Religion” – and that religion is “not Catholic enough.”
fisheaters.com/batteredbride.html
The Church as Battered Bride states:
“We must stop supporting the that which reeks of “the spirit of Vatican II,” i.e., modernism – the heterodox seminaries, the “Novus Ordo masses,” . . . We must support the true Catholic Faith – the Faith of the Fathers – with its traditional Latin Mass, traditional Sacraments, and traditional teaching.”

There are MANY more examples however, as you said, you have been there. Therefore you already know this and don’t need me to continue providing you with these examples.
  1. Read the dictionary of dissent and actually try to understand it
I did and I do. It’s a sarcastic attack on the NO Mass, Catholic terminology and the post-Conciliar Church. It’s not standup. The setting isn’t a comedy club. What don’t you get?
  1. Catholics are allowed to dislike a particular usage of the Rite, and favor another. Do you understand this? It doesn’t make them “cafeteria-style”.
I don’t have a problem with your personal likes or dislikes. I do however, have a problem with a website that claims to be Catholic and then goes about using sarcasm and belittling remarks and opinions to teardown the 21st Ecumenical Council of the same Catholic Church it claims to be obedient to. God bless.

PS - I almost forgot… LOL - Sorry, I had to get another of those AIM lingos in. :rotfl:
 
That is a very good point. However I still think that there may be some type of loophole to this. Look at the Great Western Schism that was solved by a council.
You gotta be kidding… the Western Schism became worse because of a Council: Pisa set up another antipope and caused more confusion! It was only when the true Pope (Roman line) resigned after convoking the Ecumenical Council of Constance that the schism was brought to an end.

I think under current Canon Law, no authority has the power to excommunicate or depose the Pope. The theological question of whether a Pope can become heretical remains unresolved. I am personally not too bothered because I have firm faith that God is guiding the Church and will preserve her from being overcome by the gates of Hades.
 
And yet it somehow got past you?
No, I too realize that they are excellent articles.
Why the anger and sarcasm? I’ve been respectful though I don’t hold your opinion on this issue. Do you treat everyone who disagrees with you with this type of immaturity? Would your behavior be representative of all cafeteria-Catholics?
All right, name calling is now extended to your fellow posters. Clearly you cannot think straight enough to discourse on this subject without being involved emotionally and letting it cloud your judgment. My task, which is to provide a counterargument to prevent your spreading of error, has been complete.

Enjoy.
 
All right, name calling is now extended to your fellow posters. Clearly you cannot think straight enough to discourse on this subject without being involved emotionally and letting it cloud your judgment. My task, which is to provide a counterargument to prevent your spreading of error, has been complete.

Enjoy.
LOL 😉 And now you’re going to act all indignant? In the future, don’t talk down and use sarcasm toward your fellow posters. Of course that was probably your plan the whole time… throw out insulting language and then when your opposition throws something back, call foul and walk away playing the victim without having to support your argument with intelligent debate. Nice. You run a long now. 👋
 
EDIT:

I offer apology to tietjen for my harsh words, unbecomingly uttered towards my brother in Faith, even one with whom I have great difference in opinion. Forgive me for letting my temper get the best of me, and pray for me.
 
East and West;3595131:
Well, you certainly make up in volume what you lack in accuracy. Actually, I was asking “HoldenCaulfield”.
Your entire list is nothing but simplistic distortions, and not worth responding to. Joe
LOL. Of course you would say that. You are a member of the EO churches. It doesn’t change the fact that what I wrote above is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top