WHen a Pope is a manifest heretic, what duty do we owe him?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am new to Catholic theology, so please bear with me…

But what I gather from this is that, it is not the man who determines the office, but the office who determines the man. That is, the papal office itself guarantees the infallibility of the man who fills it, regardless of the disposition of the man who fills it.

Is this right???

In Christ,
JCCopleston
 
FCCopleston said:
I am new to Catholic theology, so please bear with me…

But what I gather from this is that, it is not the man who determines the office, but the office who determines the man. That is, the papal office itself guarantees the infallibility of the man who fills it, regardless of the disposition of the man who fills it.

Is this right???

In Christ,
JCCopleston
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit gives the indefectibility and the infallability of the Church, and that of the Supreme Pontiff in his office he is the Vicar of Christ is one aspect of that.
 
Yes, and what tha tMEANS is that the SUpreme Pontiff cannot proclaim heresy as revealed by God and binding on the Church.

BUt it does NOT mean he cannot say: Guys, let’s face it, Luther was right. From now on, we will no longe rhave indulgences in the church: THey’re sinful.

A POpe COuld say that: BUt he is speaking in a private Capacity, albeit very publically.

I contend this POpe may actually end being no Pope at all: THe penalty for heresy is excommunication, incurred automatically. If any theologian espouses what is objective heresy, he incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Can an excommunicated person be head of the church?
 
Here is an article that argues that there is nothing in canon law which would prevent a person holding heretical views from becoming pope or retaining the papacy. It’s extremely unlikely that such an event could ever occur. Nevertheless, if a pope fell into heretical viewpoints, it would not void his papacy. The charism of infallibility (a negative charism, by the way) would prevent his formally teaching error.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp
 
Gregory_I said:
Yes, and what tha tMEANS is that the SUpreme Pontiff cannot proclaim heresy as revealed by God and binding on the Church.

BUt it does NOT mean he cannot say: Guys, let’s face it, Luther was right. From now on, we will no longe rhave indulgences in the church: THey’re sinful.

A POpe COuld say that: BUt he is speaking in a private Capacity, albeit very publically.

I contend this POpe may actually end being no Pope at all: THe penalty for heresy is excommunication, incurred automatically. If any theologian espouses what is objective heresy, he incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Can an excommunicated person be head of the church?
Click to expand...
The answer is yes, by virtue of current legislation. Again, all penalties are lifted for the duration of the conclave. This means even an excommunicated heretic Cardinal can elect and be elected Pope.

Further, even if a reigning Pope can be automatically excommunicated (which I contend he can’t) for heresy or anything else, his acts of governance remain valid because an excommunication needs to be declared or imposed for acts of governance to become invalid. This isn’t possible for the Roman Pontiff because he is judged by no one.
 
What about CHrist? “He who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten son.”
 
porthos11 said:
The answer is yes, by virtue of current legislation. Again, all penalties are lifted for the duration of the conclave. This means even an excommunicated heretic Cardinal can elect and be elected Pope.

Further, even if a reigning Pope can be automatically excommunicated (which I contend he can’t) for heresy or anything else, his acts of governance remain valid because an excommunication needs to be declared or imposed for acts of governance to become invalid. This isn’t possible for the Roman Pontiff because he is judged by no one.
Click to expand...
A General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope had ceased to be a Catholic so also ceased to be Pope, yet the Council would not be judging nor deposing the Pope, (it has no such authority). It can make a declaratory sentence declaring to the Church, what has already become manifest from the actions of the Pope.
 
Vico said:
A General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope had ceased to be a Catholic so also ceased to be Pope, yet the Council would not be judging nor deposing the Pope, (it has no such authority). It can make a declaratory sentence declaring to the Church, what has already become manifest from the actions of the Pope.
Click to expand...
But it cannot un-Pope a Pope, because no Ecumenical Council has binding authority without the Pope’s ratification. And because the Pope cannot be judged by no one, not even an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate him.
 
Gregory_I said:
What about CHrist? “He who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten son.”
Click to expand...
Condemned, that is, in a state of objective mortal sin. Sure thing.

It still doesn’t de-Pope a Pope. A validly elected Pope remains Pope until death or resignation.
 
Vico said:
A General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope had ceased to be a Catholic so also ceased to be Pope, yet the Council would not be judging nor deposing the Pope, (it has no such authority). It can make a declaratory sentence declaring to the Church, what has already become manifest from the actions of the Pope.
Click to expand...
Further, heresy doesn’t un-Catholic a Catholic, otherwise, the Church’s canon laws would have no binding authority over him. Heresy therefore doesn’t un-Pope a Pope. Again, even if we were to concede that the Pope can incur excommunication latae sententiae, no one has the authority to impose or declare an excommunication against him, a judicial act which no one has authority to do so. Therefore, the Pope’s acts of governance remain valid and he remains a valid Pope.

So all the bishops of the world can call a Council and say this and that, but it would be nothing more than a Robber Council because none of what they declare has any juridical authority without the Pope’s confirmation.
 
COuld an ecumenical council ENFORCE a sentence of excommunication that would occur ipso fact if the POpe would be found in heresy? THe COuncil is not passing judgement: It is ENFORCING the previous canons put in place in the church, to which even the pope should be subject.
 
Gregory_I said:
COuld an ecumenical council ENFORCE a sentence of excommunication that would occur ipso fact if the POpe would be found in heresy? THe COuncil is not passing judgement: It is ENFORCING the previous canons put in place in the church, to which even the pope should be subject.
Click to expand...
No, it cannot. For such declarations to be valid, they have to be ratified by the Pope. A council has no power of itself to declare, enforce, whatever a penalty without the Pope’s approval.

The Pope is judged by no one. It therefore goes to follow that no one has the power to enforce, declare, or whatever a penalty against the Pope (how in the world can one enforce a penalty without passing a judgment?)
 
Gregory_I said:
COuld an ecumenical council ENFORCE a sentence of excommunication that would occur ipso fact if the POpe would be found in heresy? THe COuncil is not passing judgement: It is ENFORCING the previous canons put in place in the church, to which even the pope should be subject.
Click to expand...
Further, while the Pope is subject to divine law (which is why Popes have no power to ordain women, and also why Popes can go to hell), if I understand this right, he is indeed above Canon Law, by virtue of his Supreme authority as Roman Pontiff (given that the Pope can single-handedly promulgate or abrogate Canon Law). That’s why I hold that the reigning Pope cannot be excommunicated, even latae sententiae, and definitely not ferendae sententiae.
 
Gregory_I said:
Isn’t the min dof the church infallible apart from the Pope?
Click to expand...
Nope. Infallibility rests only in:

The Pope; and
The entire college of Bishops in union with him.

Moreover, infallibility is only a negative protection, preventing these from teaching anything contrary to faith and morals. It doesn’t prevent them from becoming personal heretics or any other type of sinner.

No disciplinary measures are infallible (such as excommunications).
 
BUt aren’t they only infallible because their decrees and such correspond to the mind of the church?

Isn’t the mind of the church therefore the criterion for any papal or collegial infallibility?

Could a dogma be proclaimed that was at variance with the universal consensus of the faithful?
 
porthos11 said:
But it cannot un-Pope a Pope, because no Ecumenical Council has binding authority without the Pope’s ratification. And because the Pope cannot be judged by no one, not even an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate him.
Click to expand...
Based upon your remark, I guess you did not read what I wrote or at least not understand it (i.e., no deposing or judgement). If one is a formal heretic knowingly going against an established infallible dogma of the Church, then even a Pope cannot avoid the implications for his soul, and that can be clearly noted without a judgment.

Maybe you would need to read the source I cited earlier to understand the view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top