Stubborn,

I love your "stuff" and how you challenge the "hitters;" you have a nasty curveball.

I'd also love to hear an answer to that question too; it's a good one. Maybe there is a response but I haven't read it here. Anyway, I think your point reflects the point I've been trying to make on the heretic pope threads.

The heretic Catholic has lost the bond with Christ that only comes with possession of the Catholic faith, and in that sense he has "ipso facto" fallen out of the Church, which is the body of Christ, and is no longer a member. Yet he retains some sort of judicial or legal status in that he can walk into a confessional and simply repent, utilizing the sacraments only available to members of the Church.

But I have a question for you, since not all sins sever like heresy or schism (Mystici Corporis). How then are they different? Anyone in sin, any mortal sin, has lost the bond with Christ (the spiritual bond) as a result of losing his justification. Are you saying there is no difference with the sin of heresy or schism? I think Pius XII is clearly saying there is. So what's the difference?

Nevertheless, the melancholy possibility must be envisaged of those who may have "cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority." (Quoting MCC)

In other words, the Church, as being a perfectly constituted society, has the right for grave reasons of excluding from membership. She may pass sentence of, or lay down conditions which involve, excommunication. This carries with it the deprivation of rights and privileges enjoyed by those in communion with the faithful. But such a juridical penalty does not wholly nullify membership of the Church, still less does it necessarily imply the final condemnation before God of the excommunicated person.

Certain sins - viz., apostasy, heresy and schism -  of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ. Apostasy is a form of spiritual ѕυιcιdє, being the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian faith which one once professed. Heresy, objectively considered, is a doctrinal proposition which contradicts an article of faith; from the subjective point of view it may be defined as an error concerning the Catholic faith, freely and obstinately persisted in by a professing Christian... It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these propositions - most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate - sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.

This contributes nothing to the theological debate as to how a heretic Pope is deposed, nor how he loses jurisdiction. It is sheer nonsense to maintain that MCC in any way addresses, let alone resolves, this age-old theological controversy.

If it were possible for a pope to become a heretic, he would depose himself by his own act of public manifest formal heresy.  Both Codes of Canon Law recognize this and therefore state that the loss of office would occur automatically.  With the loss of office, his ordinary jurisdiction is gone too.  Any declaration by the Church would simply be a recognition of the fact of public manifest formal heresy.  That fact can be observed by the simple layman prior to the Church's judgment.

Hey Catholic Knight, welcome back! Just when we thought this thread was dead!

Okay, do you want to go through it all over again in a logical fashion? At the risk of having daggers thrust at us by everyone else on the forum?

I'm game if you are :)

Please do the following:

1. pick your Canon Law and substantiate your claim that it states a pope deposes himself by an act of public manifest formal heresy.

2. define what he would have to do or say for his heresy to be a)public, b)manifest and c)formal.

3. give one example for this Pope.

If you choose to just let the matter die instead, I will understand, and I think probably everyone on the forum will have a much happier Lent (including us)!

Also, Fr Hesse, who was an actual canon lawyer, has given his opinion on all these matters.  The 'pope heresy' question is not as clear-cut as you think.  The pope is above canon law, which means all those arguments about 'ipso facto' are meaningless.  What's left is the OPINION of St Bellarmine and historical papal docuмents which kindof apply but not exactly.  So what we're left with is a bunch of gray area. 

Yes and no.  If you're talking about canon law rules to govern/run the church, you are correct.  Because canon law is human law, which can change and be changed.  It is human rules to govern the human side of the Church.


If you're talking about using canon law to judge the pope and remove him from office (and that's what i'm talking about) then it doesn't work, because of the famous adage:  "The first see is judged by no one."  And that's the issue and why St Bellarmine and all the other theologians debated and debated and debated.