Sedevacantism, Ipso Facto Deposition, and Canon Law

[ZoomerVince]

Hello, I have a question regarding ipso facto deposition and Canon Law.

According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: … A fide catholica publice defecerit” (Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917).

Or in English:

“Due to a tacit resignation from the law accepts any office becomes vacant automatically and without any declaration, if the clerk: … publicly defected from the Catholic faith” (See above).

Would this teach that the Pope, upon defecting publicly from the Catholic faith loses his office? Or is there another qualifier to this in the 1917 Code of Canon Law? Various Sedevacantists use this such as Novus Ordo Watch to attempt to show that Sedevanctism is true.

Thanks in advance for anyone trying to help me with this.

 

[FiveLinden]

I would have thought that anyone ‘publicly defecting’ from any organisation would lose their office. If the president of the Very Large Goldfish Club says ‘I will have nothing more to do with the Club and am leaving it’ or ‘I resign’ the aquarists will need to convene and elect a successor. If the president instead says ‘Very big goldfish are not my favourite fish’ she has not publicly defected and may be removed but does not automatically remove themselves.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Would this teach that the Pope, upon defecting publicly from the Catholic faith loses his office?

The same way any other bishop would.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would have thought that anyone ‘publicly defecting’ from any organisation would lose their office. If the president of the Very Large Goldfish Club says ‘I will have nothing more to do with the Club and am leaving it’ or ‘I resign’ the aquarists will need to convene and elect a successor. If the president instead says ‘Very big goldfish are not my favourite fish’ she has not publicly defected and may be removed but does not automatically remove themselves.

There used to be (including back in the days of the 1917 Code) a difference between “Formal Defection” from the Church, which would be the equivalent of the President of the Club saying, “I reject this club and I’m totally leaving”, and “Public aka Notorious Defection”, which would mean the President might continue to stay around and call themself President of the Club while breaking various important club rules and using the club to promote Very large French poodle dogs instead of Very large goldfish.

It’s my understanding that nowadays, Formal Defection from the Church pretty much no longer exists under canon law.

 

[MPat]

Hello, I have a question regarding ipso facto deposition and Canon Law.

According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

“Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: … A fide catholica publice defecerit” (Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917).

Or in English:

“Due to a tacit resignation from the law accepts any office becomes vacant automatically and without any declaration, if the clerk: … publicly defected from the Catholic faith” (See above).

I’d say that would be for the case like that of Duke Albrecht of Prussia, who was the Grand Master of Teutonic Order, and then became a Lutheran and Duke of Prussia, no longer claiming to be the Grand Master.

In such case there is no doubt that one does not want to be a Catholic.

Let’s look at the text of that Code (Codex iuris canonici : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive).

The Canon you mentioned is 188, part 4. Let’s see how it is mentioned in the part concerning canonical crimes. And it is mentioned in canon 2314 (the link should open the page with the beginning of it). And (to the extent that I can read Latin) it seems to say that the ones who publicly proclaim themselves to belong to non-Catholic sect or publicly attach to them are to be understood to have tacitly resigned their offices in accordance with canon 188.

Now no Pope has recently (with “recently” covering at least five last centuries) proclaimed himself to be a member of Lutherans, Anglicans, Sedevacantists or any other non-Catholic sect. That is certain: if he had, you would not have to look at obscure schismatic publications to find that out. Everyone would know.

So, do not worry: the Pope is the Pope.

And now, get away from those publications hostile to Catholic faith. Reading them is clearly not good for you.

 

[Genesis315]

If a Pope were to defect from the Church and cease to be the Pope (which is possible), the Church would recognize it like she always does when she is deprived of her head (whether by death or positive or tacit resignation) and proceed to elect a new one.

The First Vatican Council defined as a dogma that there is to be a perpetual succession of Roman Pontiffs in the primacy. Along those same lines, the Council of Constance definitively condemned the heresy that the Church could simple proceed without such a head.

Therefore, the Church always retains the papacy either in act (ie a living Pope) or in potency (ie the ability to appoint a new one) and must be able to recognize when she is deprived of her head, even by divine assistance if necessary. Otherwise she could proceed indefinitely without a head and/or follow a false head, which is impossible according to the divine constitution of the Church.

The following ecclesiastically approved theology manual provides additional reasoning:

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 the fact that the episcopate still recognizes Francis as its head is proof in itself that he has not defected from the Church through heresy. But if he were to, the Church would recognize it–just as she recognizes when a Pope has died (she would not be perpetually fooled by some “Weekend at Bernie’s” scam) or resigned–and proceed to continue the perpetual succession.

This also rules out “Benevacantism” that says Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid. The Church recognized she was headless and proceeded to elect a new one as she always does.

 

[commenter]

The likelihood that all the bishops would agree on specific charges is slight, unless he really went off the rails. Then who would they need to prove it to? Any official in canon Law can be removed by the pope.

There might be a provision for a physician to determine the pope is no longer qualified by reason of insanity, but the Pope would need to go along with that process. We don’t know what secret protocols may be in place.

 

[dochawk]

it wouldn’t be so much “charging” him, as the pope cannot be tried. Rather, it would be an “inquiry” or some such to determine whether or not he was stil the pope.

 

[Aulef]

Novus Ordo Watch is a group that doesn’t have commitment to the truth. They run away from debates when their fallacies are exposed. They are better off ignored.