Author Topic: Why must the Church depose an anti-pope? (Read 1390 times)

Geremia · « **on:** October 22, 2014, 03:01:38 PM »

St. Francis de Sales doesn't just say, in his The Catholic Controversy p. 306:

Quote

Now when he [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church…

but he continues, saying:

Quote

…and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.

Why must the Church do this? This seems to imply he retains his bishopric—that he's materially pope but formally not, as sedeprivationism holds.

2Vermont · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2014, 05:31:29 PM »

FWIW, my impression is that it's in order to make it official or "on the record" so to speak. It is a formal recognition of what has already taken place.

PG · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2014, 02:44:50 PM »

Geremia - Good find! This gets even more interesting(many people think that privationism is even a novelty) when you think about about the concept and practicalities of formally deposing a pope. I started a thread on it about a month ago on CI, because material and formal distinctions are two widely accepted realities among sedes. However, can the church even formally depose? Nobody seems to talk about that. As a privationist, I believe that a heretic pope is ipso facto downgraded into the material situation. But, can he actually be formally deposed/downgraded(which is a step further)? Fr. Chazal wrote an article specifically about this formal concept that is inherent in the vacantist/privationist theory. And, it is interesting and worth reading. My thread is titled formal deposition of popes, the Chazal article is linked in the thread, and it is in the crisis section from about a month ago.

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2014, 03:15:19 PM »

Fact remains that if ever possible, only an Ecuмenical Council could have the authority to depose a Pope.

Quote

Can a council depose the pope?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circuмstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

But the question assumes another aspect when a number of claimants pretend to be the rightful occupants of the Apostolic See, and the right of each is doubtful. In such a case thecouncil, according to Bellarmine (Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has a right to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at the Synod of Constance. But during this process of examination the synod is not yetEcuмenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightful pope assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimate pope being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.

Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not beendoubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by hisabdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding Rome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: "If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should beaudaciously pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome" (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2014, 04:30:07 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Fact remains that if ever possible, only an Ecuмenical Council could have the authority to depose a Pope.

But if that were the case, then the pope would not be the supreme head, rather the the pope would be subject to the judgement of his subjects, which, because he is the supreme head, he isn't - or are you talking about a council deposing a pope who is already dead?

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2014, 05:22:46 PM »

Stubborn - the referenced council only served the purpose of determining who held the valid and legitimate claim/election. It even made the point that it(the council) required ratification from the pope of the outcome. So, the council did not formally depose a pope. Cantarella's post is helpful, but does not supply us with a course of action for out times(we have no rival papacy, and still no historical precedent). Cantarella's opening statement rests solely on the opinion of theologians. And, I agree with you stubborn, if a pope can be formally deposed by the mob, then he is not the supreme head. You would think that if it were possible, God would open that door for tradition to carry it out(being that we are dealing with papal heresy). But, instead, tradition is split in so many different directions, that there is no way a general council could be prepared and effective among us.

Cantarella · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2014, 06:10:28 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Cantarella
Fact remains that if ever possible, only an Ecuмenical Council could have the authority to depose a Pope.

But if that were the case, then the pope would not be the supreme head, rather the the pope would be subject to the judgement of his subjects, which, because he is the supreme head, he isn't - or are you talking about a council deposing a pope who is already dead?

My understanding is that not even an Ecuмenical Council has the authority to depose the Pope, (therefore, the "if ever possible"). It would have to be another Pope, since a Pope can be judged by none in this world. History attest that even in the Council of Constance, the anti-Pope abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. Even if an ecuмenical council or the entire College of Cardinals had the authority to declare the pope dethroned, the fact remains that it has not yet happened.

Realistically, if we truly desire to rebuild the Church and restore Christendom we must work to bring the Conciliar bishops and men of great power back to Tradition, or better yet, back to "Catholicism". Like the Portuguese proverb says we must "sweep the stairs from the top".

PG · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2014, 07:00:07 PM »

Cantarella - much better. However, I don't believe that we can sweep the top stairs. But, we can sweep our stairs in areas where the top/tradition has not declared unlawful. And, there is my opinion much room where we can sweep/reform(even radically) within the rubrics. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2014, 05:15:00 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

My understanding is that not even an Ecuмenical Council has the authority to depose the Pope, (therefore, the "if ever possible"). It would have to be another Pope, since a Pope can be judged by none in this world. History attest that even in the Council of Constance, the anti-Pope abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. Even if an ecuмenical council or the entire College of Cardinals had the authority to declare the pope dethroned, the fact remains that it has not yet happened.

Yes, I agree.

There is really only one thing that any council, or anyone could ever do, that is speak out against the pope's teachings.

I sometimes wonder how different things would be today if the council would have done what Fr. Wathen details below.

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action
against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in
particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before
God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine
wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can
denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn
them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may
the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation
to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious
and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the
pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to
protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the
laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against
an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer
for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the
priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters
in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father,
and has rendered him dangerous and unclean.