Understanding of Trent anathema

[Monica4316]

I’m really confused about this one…

the Council of Trent said that

if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

I’m not sure if this means that:

• the office would always exist, even if there’s no one to fill that office for a very long time, even during the time of the antichrist or at the exact time of the Second Coming (I’m thinking of some prophesies like one apparently by St Francis, that talks about an uncanonically elected “Pope” deceiving many Catholics)
• there would be a Pope during the Second Coming / tribulation.

I found a quote by a theologian (Emil Dorsch?) that says:

“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

  “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

  “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

  “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

Is this the Church’s view?

Does anyone know? thanks

the problem seems to be that everyone has a different interpretation of this!

ps: I’m not here to discuss or argue about any prophesies, whether accepted or not. I included that one simply to illustrate one of the understandings of the Trent quote, so it’s clearer.

 

[Genesis315]

First, that canon is from the First Vatican Council, not Trent. Read the whole chapter for more context. It’s chapter 2 here: ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

The point is, St. Peter’s office did not end with him, but continues in his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. The office is a perpetual part of the Church.

Obviously, as has been mentioned, Popes die or abdicate and so there is no successor for a time, sometimes even a long time. But the Church in those times still anticipates a successor and works to appoint one. The Church could never just give up and decide to go without a Pope until Our Lord comes.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the reply…

So what about the particular time of the - end times? (rather than between Popes when they die)

I didn’t mean the Church just deciding to not have a Pope, but if let’s say the true Pope goes into hiding and then dies and then the Second Coming is without the Pope at that moment - I’m just saying in general, as an idea! how would it relate to the anathema? the office of the Papacy didn’t fail in that case, but there’s a time without a Pope, though the office continues always… ?

and yes it’s VI, my mistake sorry

 

[Monica4316]

I’m trying to understand this… it seems to talk about the primacy of Peter always existing, the Popes being his successors, the Catholics following the Pope, and then mentions perpetual successors and that’s the part I’m trying to understand… maybe it relates to point 1, in which case it’s more about the office then particular Popes? does that mean that the theologian is saying the same thing?

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

 

[PJM]

=Monica4316;10511753]I’m really confused about this one…

the Council of Trent said that

I’m not sure if this means that:

• the office would always exist, even if there’s no one to fill that office for a very long time, even during the time of the antichrist or at the exact time of the Second Coming (I’m thinking of some prophesies like one apparently by St Francis, that talks about an uncanonically elected “Pope” deceiving many Catholics)

• there would be a Pope during the Second Coming / tribulation.

I found a quote by a theologian (Emil Dorsch?) that says:

“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

  “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

  “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

  “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

Is this the Church’s view?

Does anyone know? thanks

the problem seems to be that everyone has a different interpretation of this!

ps: I’m not here to discuss or argue about any prophesies, whether accepted or not. I included that one simply to illustrate one of the understandings of the Trent quote, so it’s clearer.

FROM FATHER HARDONS “MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY”

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10511753

ANATHEMA. Solemn condemnation, of biblical origin, used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine.

“If anyone,” Paul wrote to the Galatians, “preach to you a gospel besides what you have received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:9). Reflecting the Church’s concern to preserve the integrity of faith, the Fathers anathematized heretics in a variety of terms. Polycarp called Marcion the firstborn of the devil. Ignatius saw in heretics poisonous plants, or animals in human form. Justin (c. 100-65) and Tertullian (160-220) called their teachings an inspiration of the Evil One. Theophilus compared them to barren and rocky islands on which ships were wrecked, and Origen said they were pirates placing lights on cliffs to lure and destroy vessels in search of refuge. These primitive views were later tempered in language, but the implicit attitudes remained and were crystallized in solemn conciliar decrees. The familiar anathema sit (let him be anathema, or excommunicated) appears to have been first applied to heretics at the Council of Elvira (Spain) in 300-6, and became the standard formula in all the general councils of the Church, as against Arius (256-336) at I Nicaea (325), Nestorius at Ephesus (431), Eutyches at Chalcedon (451) and the Iconoclasts at II Nicaea in 787. (Etym. Greek anathema, thing devoted to evil, curse; and accursed thing or person; from anatithenai, to set up, dedicate.)"

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t think there’s anything stopping the Second Coming from happening during an interregnum.

That being said, the theologian you cite, at least in the bits and pieces you’ve pasted, doesn’t get into an important point necessarily tied to that canon. The Church may not have an actual Pope for a time (due to death or abdication), but it always has one at least in potency–in other words, it always has the potential and power to designate a new one.

See, for example, Cardinal Journet’s famous work on the Church:
Journet:

B. The Church During A Vacancy Of The Holy See

We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.[896] But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven. There is no one left then on earth who can visibly exercise the supreme spiritual jurisdiction in His name, and, in consequence, any new manifestations of the general life of the Church are prevented. But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.[897]

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08
Whole work: ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHWORDIN.HTM

The canon therefore rules out three things: (1) the idea that the papacy is not an office proper to the Church (2), the idea that the Church can abolish the papacy, and (3) the idea that the Church could lose the power to appoint a new one.

So, given where you’ve cut and pasted your quotes from, this last point is key. No serious sedevacantist group I know of has tried to designate a new Bishop of Rome–they all claim it will necessarily take some sort of divine intervention to restore the papacy or that it’s inevitable that we’ll go without a Pope to the end of the world. They are all content to go about their business without a Pope. If God has to restore the power to designate a Pope to the Church (or obviously if that power is never restored), it means the Church has lost that power at some point. If that is the case, the potential for perpetual successors is lost, and the canon at issue in the OP is violated.

As an aside, you might also be interested in this article on the indefectibility of the particular Church of Rome (the original article, from the famous Fr. Fenton, is from the 1940s). This doctrine is also important to the issues you are apparently dealing with:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608

 

[Megan7]

I’m really confused about this one…

the Council of Trent said that

I’m not sure if this means that:

• the office would always exist, even if there’s no one to fill that office for a very long time, even during the time of the antichrist or at the exact time of the Second Coming (I’m thinking of some prophesies like one apparently by St Francis, that talks about an uncanonically elected “Pope” deceiving many Catholics)
• there would be a Pope during the Second Coming / tribulation.

I found a quote by a theologian (Emil Dorsch?) that says:

“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

  “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

  “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

  “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)

Is this the Church’s view?

Does anyone know? thanks

the problem seems to be that everyone has a different interpretation of this!

ps: I’m not here to discuss or argue about any prophesies, whether accepted or not. I included that one simply to illustrate one of the understandings of the Trent quote, so it’s clearer.