 |
| Deposing a heretical pope |
There is certain to be more, not less controversy, over the “Pope Francis” “Apostolic Exhortation” entitled “Amoris Laetitia” in the coming weeks, as a group of Roman Catholic scholars, canon lawyers, and theologians meet to discuss the topic, “How to Depose a Heretical Pope”, March 30 and 31 in Paris.
PARIS, March 17, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Canon lawyers, theologians, and scholars will be meeting in Paris in two weeks to discuss a topic that has never been the focus of a Catholic conference before: How to depose a heretical pope.
Titled Deposing the Pope: Theological Premises, Canonical Models, Constitutional Challenge, the conference seeks to explore the mechanisms that are built into the Catholic Church for dealing with a pope who openly teaches falsehood and even heresy.
Speaking at the conference will be University of Paris Professor Laurent Fonbaustier who published a 1200 page book last year on the topic that was titled The Deposition of the Heretical Pope.
The conference includes 15 speakers who will be giving a range of talks on the subject matter with titles such as “Conciliarism and the Deposition of a Pope Through the Prism of Gallicanism,” "The Downfall of the Pope: Between Renunciation and Deposition," and "The Deposition of John XXII and Benedict XIII at Constance, 1415–1417."
Many conservative Roman Catholics will certainly dismiss this conference, noting that it is something like “mere speculation”. But speculations of this nature are certain to drive more, not fewer discussions, as the gleanings from the conference are certain to bring options to mind that many will want to explore further.
Francis’ ambiguous speeches and especially his papal writings have turned cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and lay-faithful against lay-faithful. Doctrinal confusion has resulted in pastoral guidelines being issued based on his writings that allow Holy Communion to be given to those living in adultery.
Last November Vaticanist Giuseppe Nardi reported that a 1975 theological study by the learned Brazilian layman Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira was making the rounds in the Vatican. The layman examined in his work titled The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope whether it is possible for a pope to be or become a heretic, and if so, what consequences would follow from this.
Reported Nardi: “Three-and-a-half years after the start of his pontificate, Pope Francis is reaching his limits. The impression, given by means of gestures and words, of a latent intention to change the doctrine of the Church must at some point either take on definite form or else it must collapse,” he wrote at that time.
“Francis finds himself cornered by means of the very atmosphere he himself is responsible for creating. It’s no longer about a spontaneous utterance on this or that, which remains improvised and non-binding. His pastoral work and his leadership skills, which demand a sense of responsibility and an exemplary character, are reaching their limits. This could cause Francis [‘s pontificate] to fail,” he added.
The conference comes three months after Cardinal Raymond Burke gave an interview in which he explained that if a pope were to "formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope.”
The fireworks are only going to get louder, it seems.
Fireworks notwithstanding, there has to be a will to act upon what is learned; should Jorge be able to load the college of cardinals with his hand-picked stooges, fireworks it shall remain.
ReplyDeleteI like Lee Atwater's adaptation of Napoleon's saying, "never interrupt your enemy when he's shooting himself in the foot". Every stroke of the pen in this dispute will serve to re-affirm the Protestant views (a) that the papacy as it is defined by Rome confers no epistemological advantage to the RCC with respect to "infallibility", and (b) in fact, the papacy is a false office, a usurped office, with absolutely no sanction whatsoever from the Holy Spirit.
DeleteIt will be amusing to see how Catholic Answers & other apologists handle all of this; DV they will see the Lady in Red on the Dragon of Green for what she is.
DeleteI read a bishop (I think) who said something to the effect of that if a pope teaches actual heresy, the very moment he does, he ceases to be pope. The upshot of this is, of course, a "development of doctrine" guarantee that no REAL pope will ever actually teach heresy, because by definition, he is not pope at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is what it takes to reinstate a heretical pope after he has actually taught formal heresy. My guess is that they will come up with something. It is pulling the rug out from under any rational attempt to prop up the doctrine of papal infallibility and replacing it with a "whatever feels right at the time to make sure we retain the keys to the kingdom" philosophy.
It's like trying to prove their doctrines became too hard so now they just punt and say "yup. but it doesn't matter. we are still the One True Church (TM) because we say so."
Sounds like the "no true Scotsman" defense.
Delete///I read a bishop (I think) who said something to the effect of that if a pope teaches actual heresy, the very moment he does, he ceases to be pope.///
DeleteThat was Burke. That is an easy accusation to make, but actually getting a consensus together and throwing the guy out of the Vatican, that's a different story.
///The upshot of this is, of course, a "development of doctrine" guarantee that no REAL pope will ever actually teach heresy, because by definition, he is not pope at the time.///
///The real question is what it takes to reinstate a heretical pope after he has actually taught formal heresy.///
This doesn't make sense. If a pope has "actually tought formal heresy", why would they want to reinstate him? They'd elect a new one at that point.
Generally, Roman dogma is a wax nose, to be "requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time" as Raymond Brown said. The problem with Amoris Laetitia is not that it has anything to do with "marriage and divorce" -- that is just the pretext for "changes made to dogma with respect to the Eucharist" -- and that is where the real fight is. They are redefining the key/core "sacrement" -- the one thing that has defined Roman Catholicism. They have always said "this is the same as it was at the Last Supper". And that is one thing that remained consistent through Vatican II. But now, if they start to nibble away at this, there will be no stopping it.
"This doesn't make sense."
DeleteYou are right, it doesn't make any sense. But there were also a bunch of "hard line" Catholic friends of mine who thought that electing the current Pope would never happen because they saw this coming too. Then he was elected, and now they need to be very careful when talking about things like infallibility.
It's things like this that make me wonder what Catholicism will look like 50 or 100 years from now. Will there be another reformation where all of the people who call me a schismatic will then themselves be schismatics? :)
There is a CS Lewis quote here to that effect:
Deletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-cs-lewis-never-became-roman-catholic.html
“The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you [Catholics] is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say.”
My thought is to raise a toast to Bergoglio: "May you live long and prosper!"
That's a great quote!
DeleteYes, the Church can most certainly depose a heretical Pope - a survey made by Armando de Silveira discovered that out of 136 theologians who wrote on this issue only one claimed that a heretical Pope cannot be deposed.
ReplyDeleteIt is not "not true Scotsman" or "development of doctrine" defense as some of the comments here suggest. As the Church has always taught, a heretical is not a member of the Church can cannot hold any office in the Church. Thus, if Francis fell into formal heresy he is certainly not a Pope can the Church can recognize this fact and depose him (of course he ceases to be Pope the moment he fells into formal heresy, so there is no Conciliarism involved, as James White incorrectly claimed on the Dividing Line). It is possible that Francis was never a true Pope, since Pope Paul IV taught in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio that election of a heretic to the Papacy is null and void, even if made by unanimous agreement of all cardinals.
These events were predicted in numerous private revelations over time - in Fatima Our Lady predicted that there will be a great apostasy in the Church starting at the top, St. Francis of Assissi predicted there will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will be a destroyed, Our Lady predicted in Akita in 1973 that there will be chaos in the Church with bishops against bishops and cardinals against cardinals culminated by a chastisement from God greater than the deluge. Faithful Catholics are not surprised by what is going on.
///As the Church has always taught, a heretical is not a member of the Church can cannot hold any office in the Church./// If popes and bishops are teaching a thing together, then what's the mechanism by which you (or anyone) would depose him. Or do you leave that to history to sort it out after-the-fact?
Delete///It is possible that Francis was never a true Pope, since Pope Paul IV taught in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio that election of a heretic to the Papacy is null and void, even if made by unanimous agreement of all cardinals./// It very much seems as if some historical, after-the-fact sorting out would be required. For now, what do Catholics do? Just hold their own private judgment that no, Francis is not a pope, so let's just circle the wagons and wait it out?
///numerous private revelations over time /// -- all completely subjective, non-scriptural, and holding no water here. Pure speculation. We here (at least I do) hold that Roman Catholicism is a bastardization of true Biblical Christianity, and so speculations of apostasy are merely red herrings. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is purely a pack of criminals, whatever they "teach".
So for the record, @Arvinger, I view this intra-Roman question as similar to the Mafia removing a Don -- sure, there's been a succession of Dons, and they have their own code about things, but the office of "Don" itself is, well, not legitimate outside of the Mafia.
Delete@John Bugay
Delete"If popes and bishops are teaching a thing together, then what's the mechanism by which you (or anyone) would depose him. Or do you leave that to history to sort it out after-the-fact?"
No, it is possible to call an Imperfect Council which recognizes the fact that the Pope has already spearated himself from the Church (and thus lost his Papacy before, so there is no judgment of the Pope of conciliarism involved) or he was never a Pope to begin with if he was a formal heretic at the moment of election (see Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio).
"It very much seems as if some historical, after-the-fact sorting out would be required. For now, what do Catholics do? Just hold their own private judgment that no, Francis is not a pope, so let's just circle the wagons and wait it out?"
The situation is completely new, since there was never such a mass defection among the hierarchy from the Church as in last fifty years after Vatican II (save the Arian heresy maybe, but modernism, as synthesis of all heresis, attack all dogmas, not just one as Arians did). Therefore, for now Catholics should suspend judgment on the question of legitimacy of V2 claimants to the Papacy. It is possible that the Chair of Peter is vacant and that anti-Popes are reignig from Rome for last 50+ years, but we will not know it with certainty untill Church's official pronouncement or Second Coming of Jesus Christ, whichever is first.
"all completely subjective, non-scriptural, and holding no water here. Pure speculation. We here (at least I do) hold that Roman Catholicism is a bastardization of true Biblical Christianity, and so speculations of apostasy are merely red herrings. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is purely a pack of criminals, whatever they "teach"."
Not at all subjective - I refer to Church-approved private revelations. Non-scripturality was never an issue - first, since sola scriptura is a false doctrine which was not taught anywhere in the Bible and is thus self-contradictory, second, these private revelations did not add anything to the deposit of faith, there were communication of God with His people regarding current and future events in the Church, and are confirmed with miracles such as Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, witnessed by 70.000 people. As to your emotional judgment on the Church that Jesus Christ has established - since it is devoid of any actual arguments I will pass it over in silence.
(Thanks John, for all your hard work!)
ReplyDeleteI get pessimistic about these depositions because we are into what, the 266th pope, and there's been plenty of correctives in the past that accomplished nothing. The train is on the wrong tracks, and Rome's conservatives are only correcting the caboose.