What happens if the pope is a heretic?

I read the transcript since I learn better from text.

 

Hi Whatever.

1. A valid Pope can "resign" the "munus," according to Canon 332.2 of 1983 Canon Law. There is no doubt that he can do that. But in his Declaratio, Benedict DID NOT resign the "office/gift/charge" [munus]," he resigned the "active ministry" [ministerium]. In legal matters, exact wording does matter. Those two words can have overlapping meanings, but they are not identical. The munus is the ENTIRE "office." The entire "office" has different roles or ministries that the officeholder performs. So, again, Canon Law only speaks of resigning the "munus," the whole thing. Benedict XVI clearly did not do that.

2. The word "resign" depends on what the person says he resigned from. If I am the owner and CEO of a company and I make an announcement that I "resign" as CEO of the company, does that mean that I am no longer the owner of the company? Of course it doesn't mean that. So a similar thing is at work in Benedict's Declaratio. He has "renounced" one of the roles that he has played in the past. But he has said nothing about "renouncing" his claim to the office [munus] of the Vicar of Christ. In fact, in his Last General Audience, he says, that he will still be performing one of the roles that he performed in the past, the contemplative role. Here is what he said:

The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.​

He is explaining that the Vicar of Christ plays two roles, one active and one contemplative. He is renouncing the "active" role, but has not renounced the "contemplative" role. This means that he is still in possession of the "office" [munus] that both roles normally belong to.

3. So, yes, a Pope can resign the "munus," according to Canon 332.2. But he can also "retire" from certain activities (ministries) and delegate those activities to other people. He is the Pope, that is his prerogative. In the Declaratio, Benedict resigned from the "active ministries" of governance, which is what he meant when he declared a "vacancy." When a "vacancy" occurs, this triggers and authorizes certain other legal actions. According to Universi Dominici Gregis, the College of Cardinals take over the day-to-day governance of the Church, but they can only transact "ordinary business and of matters which cannot be postponed" (UDG, 2). They cannot change Church doctrine or appoint new Cardinals or diocesan Bishops. Only a Pope can do those things.

4. Universi Dominici Gregis requires that a new Pope only be elected AFTER "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated" (UDG, 49). That is the current law of the Universal Church. It is not my opinion. It does not matter what the Church has done in the past before UDG was in force. What matters is the current governing law of the Church on the matter of papal vacancies and elections. Universi Dominici Gregis is that governing law.

5. It doesn't matter how many "Canon lawyers" have or have not "questioned the validity" of the Conclave. Truth is not defined by majority rule or presumed expertise. It is defined by the facts, the law, and logic. So the "universal acceptance" theory is irrelevant and anachronistic. That theory was suggested at a time when no governing law existed. Now, however, Universi Dominici Gregis requires that a papal election be carried out according to exact standards. Any election not carried out according to those standards is "null and void." Here is the exact wording in UDG related to that question:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.​

So, again, this is not my opinion. UDG is the law of the Catholic Church in force in March 2013 and still in force today.

6. To recap: Benedict did not "resign the munus" (Canon 332.2). Benedict did "resign the active ministry." Benedict retained the "passive, contemplative ministry" of the Roman Pontiff. Benedict declared a "vacancy" in the See of Rome. When such a vacancy occurs, Universi Dominici Gregis is the governing law to be consulted to see what to do about it. One of the things that UDG requires is that "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated" BEFORE any lawful papal election can take place. Since no "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated" because Benedict XVI is not dead, the papal election that took place in March 2013 was null and void according to the governing law of the Church found in UDG.

 

I read the transcript and find a lot of what they said to be balanced and charitable. For myself, I do spend too much time online when I could be praying more and living 'real life'.

Given that Catholic Answers has the attention of the bishops, I thought the two men went very close to admitting that this papacy is a car crash. It was perhaps difficult for them to point out that devout and faithful Catholics have been so scandalised by the words and deeds of this pope that they are looking for a way of coming to terms with the current situation and this leads them to adopt theories like the Mazza hypothesis. I don't think we have had a pope who sowed confusion the way this one does. And it is confusion because Pope Francis does at times say beautiful things, and the Year of St Joseph was a wonderful idea which brought fruit.

Don't jump down my throat, I am simply listing the few good things. We all know the bad - Pachamama, promoting pro-aborts, ambiguous statements about God's will, shutting down the Franciscans of the Immaculate, using inappropriate language unworthy of a Pope, not answering the dubbia, packing the college of Cardinals with his yes-men, refusing to support Cardinal Zen.... and so on.

Maybe Jorge Begoglio is the pope, maybe he isn't, but it's above my pay grade to determine it. In the future, when the dust has settled, the church will decide.

The fact that good Catholics who seek holiness can disagree on this shows how much confusion there is. Confusion is not of God. We are living through a terrrible chastisement.

 

It’s not an either/or. You can reject the heresy without refusing obedience to lawful authority.

A father does not cease being a father when he is wrong.

Tread carefully here…

 

This is the answer. Thank you.

 

The Seat was vacant. Pope Benedict said so. The Universal Church accepted the election of Francis. They're the facts.

I can't remember the precise term for the Universal Church accepting the validity of a Pope. That's what I was searching for when I came across the Catholic Answers response to Patrick Coffin.

I strongly suspect that the pressure was heaped on Pope Benedict, leading to his resignation but my suspicions don't amount to a hill of beans because I have no authority. Authority matters in the Catholic Church. The supreme authority on Earth, Pope Benedict, told us that the seat was empty and that a new Pope was to be elected. When he did that, he had authority to follow or ignore a procedural document. To this day, he recognises Francis as Pope and none of us had the right to second guess him or his motives.

 

But...does one only have an obligation to accept what is lawful from a lawful authority? What if the 'lawful authority' adds Pachamama worship into the liturgy of the Mass, to take one example? A father might still be a father when he beats up a child's mother, but surely this must introduce a different dynamic to the child-father relationship than one in which the father is loving to his wife? Confusion, confusion, confusion...

 

I personally think that, if Pope Francis is not currently pope, it is more likely because he has absented himself from the office because of some of his words and actions. While this is a plausible possibility, I have no idea how any human being can determine this. So, I suppose we'll just have to live with it.

Edit: Sorry, I inadvertently quoted myself. An unintended solipsism, I assure you!

I meant to quote Whatever's post above.

 

Brian, Frodo said it better than I can, but we do need to tread very carefully. Francis telling people they had a moral obligation to take an abortion tainted vaccine appeared to me to be calling evil good. It also wasn't strictly in line with the Church's official position as laid out in a document issued under his papacy. It was the usual Francis talking out of both sides of his mouth. He may be a hypocrite but he's still our supreme authority on earth. We can resist heresy but we don't have the authority to deny his right to hold office.

I think that some people overdo the interpretation of St. Paul's interaction with the High Priest but there's absolutely no doubt that Paul, a Pharisee who knew the Old Testament like the back of his hand and received direct from God his mission to evangelise the Gentiles, accepted the authority of the High Priest who denied the Resurrection. There's a reason that passage is in Scripture and we need to think long and hard about whether it's meant specifically for us in these times.

Something I do find interesting is that the Sanhedrin were probably the equivalent of our episcopate (I'm not sure about that) yet Paul had no qualms about condemning one of them.

I'm going to be busy for the rest of the weekend so may not get to read any more posts until Monday or Tuesday. Hope you all have a blessed weekend.

 

The question you asked here, imho, is a good place to start because it boils it down to a very simple place from which to start. We have the father-mother dynamic along with the child's dynamic with the parents. What does a child do in an abusive situation, whether it's the father or perhaps the mother who is the abuser; or, looking from a wordly perspective, both ? A child will resist an abusive father and will likely fight for his mother. If the wife/mother is the abusive one, how does the child handle this? Especially if the father/husband is a weak man? In either scenario, the poor child is likely going to be messed up emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

Looking at a traditional family dynamic, with a hierarchical structure, it may be possible to determine the course of action to take given the situation with the Holy Father and the Church here on earth. For my part, and imo right now, we have an abusive father and when we turn to the Church (on earth), we are getting conflicting answers on how to cope and deal because "some mothers want to be fathers, and some fathers think that's a dandy inclusive idea". So, what do we do? For myself, I am going to the Blessed Mother, her Son, and her Spouse for help, because when God, The Father, at some point, comes to intervene, well.....we can probably all hear the words, "just wait until your father gets home".........

Pope Leo had the vision: The Father gave the prince of this world 100 years. We don't know when the clock started, but that 100 years appears to soon be coming to an end....Stay close to the Blessed Mother; she will keep us safe.....Those are my own childlike thoughts, for now anyway

 

My thoughts exactly. A good analogy. Fr Ripperger reports a powerful demon in an exorcism last year--maybe lucifer--complained in a kind of agony that He ((God) was coming to take away his power.

 

We "must become like little children".

 

Hi Whatever.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I agree, the "See of Rome" is vacant because Pope Benedict XVI declared it to be "vacant" in his Declaratio.

Now, since we both agree that the "See of Rome" was vacant on 28 February 2013 (as Benedict XVI declared), we can look at what the law says to do in the situation of a "vacancy." To do this we must look to Universi Dominici Gregis. At the end of the preamble of UDG, we read:

With these intentions, I promulgate the present Apostolic Constitution containing the norms which, when the Roman See becomes vacant, are to be strictly followed by the Cardinals whose right and duty it is to elect the Successor of Peter, the visible Head of the whole Church and the Servant of the servants of God.​

So the "fact" is that Benedict XVI declared the "See of Rome" vacant. The "law" says that "the norms" in UDG "are to be strictly followed by the Cardinals" when they fill the "vacancy." This is and was the law of the Church at the time that the putative 2013 Conclave took place. This law must be followed perfectly otherwise the Conclave will be null and void.

The "universal acceptance" theory was a suggestion hundreds of years ago by Catholic theologians. It was a valid theory when there was no governing law to the contrary. In ages past, either there was no law at all governing Conclaves or the law was inadequate. However, UDG is very precise and detailed. So the "universal acceptance" theory is outdated and does not apply to the 2013 situation. Again, these are "facts."

Benedict absolutely told us, in your words, "that the seat was empty and that a new Pope was to be elected." I agree with you completely. However, in his Declaratio, he did not change anything regarding the legal procedures to be followed for such an election. He did not say WHEN "a new Pope was to be elected," did he? No, he did not. Because any competent authority would know that Universi Dominici Gregis was the law to be followed in the matter of a papal election. In fact, Benedict himself on 22 February 2013 made some minor modifications to UDG in the Motu Proprio Normas Nonnullas. So Benedict XVI was clear about the law to be followed.

Interestingly, Benedict even quotes UDG 49 in Normas Nunnullas, which requires that "the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated" BEFORE a new election can take place. This is the key section with the norm that the Cardinals failed to observe. Instead, they elected a new Pope BEFORE the previous Pope died. This is "against the law." And regarding those situations where the law is not observed precisely, UDG states:

76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.​

So, see Whatever, you don't need to be an "authority" to recognize the Truth. The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio was "null and void" according to Universi Dominici Gregis because the Cardinals did not wait for the previous Pope to die before electing a new one. There is no "need for a declaration on the matter." You are fully authorized to use the brain that Our Lord gave you and accept the Truth. There is no need to wait for anyone else to think for you or act for you in this matter.

 

Deacon Nick Donnelly has a post on Facebook which refers to a discussion at the end of Vatican I.

One of the Cardinals raised the point of a heretical pope and was told that such was impossible. However if a future pope were to utter heresy against church dogma then he would automatically lose the papacy. He would no longer be pope.

I think this point has been discussed here before and am not sure how authoritative this judgment is. But it’s good for thought. Of course Francis is careful in his utterances (hence the confusion) but he has come close to heresy, or even entered it, by his talk of the Eucharist, who can receive, etc. And the veneration of Pachamama in the heart of St Peters clearly broke the First Commandment.

 

Hi Clare A. Prior to the definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility at Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), it was an open theological question (and there was a vigorous debate) whether or not a true, legitimate Pope could OFFICIALLY teach heresy. Different theologians disagreed about it. Pastor Aeternus put an end to that debate by defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility (on the official teaching in matters of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church).

So this means for us, who live AFTER Pastor Aeternus, a legitimate Pope CANNOT officially teach heresy. Therefore, a legitimate Pope could not lose his office by teaching heresy.

AFTER Pastor Aeternus, any papal claimant who does actually teach heresy must necessarily be an antipope (a non-canonically-elected Bishop of Rome). It would not be a reason to "depose" him, because he was never actually the Pope anyway. It would be evidence that the papal claimant never had the supernatural gift of Infallibility given to him by the Holy Spirit in the first place.

So if a person (Bergoglio) who claimed to be Pope was doing that, that would be incontrovertible evidence that he was never a legitimately-elected Pope. And this is not a theological opinion, but a Dogma of the Faith (de fide). To say both that Bergoglio was legitimately-elected Pope AND that Bergoglio has officially taught heresy would be to deny the substance of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. You can't have both. Either you can have a heretic-Pope or Papal Infallibility. They are mutually-exclusive options.

 

Of course, Pope Francis has not made any heretical announcement that could definitely be called ex Cathedra. He's playing a clever game.

 

St John Henry, Cardinal Newman is very good. He comes from an Anglican background, which gives him great balance as relating to the Infallibility of a Pope and the limitations on his powers:

St John Henry is a Great Antidote to Papal Idolatory.

http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/newman.html

 

One big question St John Henry Cardinal Newman often asked was,

'What if it happens, as we did in the past, we get a bad Pope in the future?'.

This was just so very Prophetic to the days we are living in.