Topic: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope

[gueranger]

I have never seen a Catholic source admit that Pope Viligilus was excommunicated, but here it is as a caption on the Remnant.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope


It is amazing to read the mental gymnastics they go through to reconcile deposing a Pope while upholding Vatican I. If the the Pope can be deposed for heresy, he is not the guarantee of unity or orthodoxy. The faith is. And that's Orthodoxy!

[Paisius]

My favorite explanation is that Pope Vigilius was stricken from the diptychs because he was the pope and that Justinian and the council knew they needed his approval to legitimize the council. So far from being a rebuke to modern Catholic claims it actually confirms them.  

[Gunnarr]

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

[Minnesotan]

Yeah, the Old Catholics definitely had a point, but unfortunately their side lost.

There is an ongoing dialogue between the Old Catholics and the Orthodox, and there are agreements on most of the main doctrines, but there are several sticking points that may be very hard to iron out (like women's ordination among some OC's, and intercommunion with outside groups like Anglicans).

[Mor Ephrem]

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

But, but...Theodore Abu Qurrah!!!!!!!!!

[PorphyriosK]

I have never seen a Catholic source admit that Pope Viligilus was excommunicated, but here it is as a caption on the Remnant.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope


It is amazing to read the mental gymnastics they go through to reconcile deposing a Pope while upholding Vatican I. If the the Pope can be deposed for heresy, he is not the guarantee of unity or orthodoxy. The faith is. And that's Orthodoxy!

My understanding is that there is the office of the papacy, and then there is the person holding the office.  The office of the papacy, the See of Rome, is the guarantee of unity and orthodoxy, not necessarily the individual seated in it.  The individual who is occupying that office at any given time can be faithful or unfaithful.  Most of the time he is faithful, but there have been times in history where he was not faithful.  In those times, he was either prevented from teaching heresy, or was removed from holding the office.  That's what I've come to understand.  I could be wrong.  If so, maybe someone can correct me.

[Paisius]

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

Is this an accurate quote?

[Gunnarr]

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

Is this an accurate quote?

Well, the stated source for the quote is:

Quaest. in IV Sent. Quote in: “L'Infaillibilité du pape et le Syllabus", (Besançon: Jacquin; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1904)



So........   good luck finding a 1904 book on the internet, we may never know if it is true or not!

EDIT: Actually, it is found! Lets see.. brb!

[Gunnarr]

Ok, for the source on Pope Adrian IV saying that Popes may be heretics and previous popes were heretics there is this passage from that book where the author quotes him:

Celui qui devait être Adrien VI a examiné cette question dans son commentaire sur le Maître des Sentences et l'a résolue avec une précision et une netteté qui ne laissent rien à désirer : « Dico primo quod si per Romanam Ecclesian intelligatur caput ejus, puta pontifex, certum est quod possit errare, etiam in iis quae tangerent fldem, haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. Plures enim fuerunt pontifices Romani hœretici, etc. (1). »

At the 1 this is stated:

Adrien VI, Questiones in quartum Sententiarum, De sacramento confirmationis, in fine, Venumdatur in œdibus Jodoci Badii, fol. en v. L'ouvrage a été réimprimé sous le pontificat d'Adrien VI sans que ce passage ait été modifié. Sur quoi ceux qui sont choqués par cette doctrine font l'observation que voici : « Non perciô è a dirsi, ch'egli corne papa conformasse una sift'atta proposizione. Quante volte non si ristampano délie opere, senzachè ne sia consapevole l'autore, o che ne abbia dato l'ultima mano ? » (Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storicoecclesiastica, 1.1", pp. 104,105). L'observation est juste; mais, en regard de ce qui est possible, il faut considérer ce qui est probable; or, il est probable que les réimpressions ont été faites de l'aveu de l'auteur, devenu pape. Et pourquoi nous étonnerions-nous de voir Adrien VI professer la même doctrine qu'Adrien II, Innocent III, Innocent IV?

With all the mixing of french and latin, with my failures in french class when I was younger, I cannot tell what is being said much, but It appears the source is from that first latin thingy listed there...


link to the book

http://books.google.com/books?id=pYgvAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA118&lpg=RA1-PA118&dq=L%27Infaillibilite%CC%81+du+pape+et+le+Syllabus&source=bl&ots=U1mrvYQugR&sig=OqwHMF_86iG44sSIDNQX6VbfYzQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rp1xVMOqBMydgwTpvIKICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=adrien&f=false

go to page 21 for this passage

[Gunnarr]

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

But, but...Theodore Abu Qurrah!!!!!!!!!

I never heard of this person, how does he relate to Papal Infallibility??? Did he speak about the Pope?

[gueranger]

I never heard of this person, how does he relate to Papal Infallibility??? Did he speak about the Pope?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=49842.0;wap2

[Wandile]

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.

If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.

[gueranger]

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.

If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.

Yes, but deposing a pope is entirely different from disagreeing with him. Deposing a Pope seems to completely undermine papal supremacy of jurisdiction...

Deposing a pope also undermines infallibility in a secondary way. If a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement and someone disagrees with it they can argue that he should be deposed for heresy and the new dogma rejected. The idea of deposing a pope undermines the stability that the office supposedly provides.

[Wandile]

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.

If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.

Yes, but deposing a pope is entirely different from disagreeing with him. Deposing a Pope seems to completely undermine papal supremacy of jurisdiction...

Yes its impossible in the Catholicism. Yet the fact is explained by Pope Innocent III and St.Robert Bellarmine in that a pipe can be shown to be s formal heretic. A catholic ceases to be catholic once he entered formal heresy and is thus a layman. Once shown to be a formal heretic he can be tried and judged

Pope Innocent III († 1216) stated that a pope can wither away into heresy and not believe the Faith.

"The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because "he who does not believe is already judged." (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men. '" (Sermo 4)

The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office

Deposing a pope also undermines infallibility in a secondary way. If a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement and someone disagrees with it they can argue that he should be deposed for heresy and the new dogma rejected. The idea of deposing a pope undermines the stability that the office supposedly provides.

Straw man. It would need to be the magesterium which shows the pope to be at least a material heretic as John XXII and if he refuses to accept correction he is thus a formal heretic, no more catholic an thus the person is being judged is not a Pope but a layman.

Secondly an Ex Cathedra Pronouncement cannot be heretical as the Holy Spirit guides the pope and protects him from teaching error when defining something to be held by all as a matter of faith.

Finally the Pope must deny a de fide doctrine for all this to happen.

[Regnare]

Trying to combine this with papal infallibility is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy (changing a definition to exclude anything that doesn't fit the example), though. Of course popes have never erred if you automatically exclude all erring popes. It's like saying all apples are red, and any apples that are green are actually pears. You can either have Pope Innocent III or Pope Pius IX, not both.

[Wandile]

Trying to combine this with papal infallibility is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy (changing a definition to exclude anything that doesn't fit the example), though. Of course popes have never erred if you automatically exclude all erring popes. It's like saying all apples are red, and any apples that are green are actually pears. You can either have Pope Innocent III or Pope Pius IX, not both.

No this is a straw man

No Papal infallibility was defined specifically in the way it was so that no contradiction between what has been taught and what infallibility is exists. These men are all speaking of the ordinary capacity if the Popes which is true 100%. That's why such quotes haven't shaken the catholic church today because we know our tradition. Even if you would wish we didn't.


Its is a fact that formal heretic is not a catholic plain and simple. Arians aren't catholic. They are Arian...

No pope has ever been a formal heretic and that right there is the truth. Even when Pope Adrian mentions Pope John XII , he was a material heretic who renounced his error on a theological opinion as the issue hadn't even been decided yet. Pius IX already deals with liberius and Pope Liberius' actions alone show his true faith. Honorius was not a heretic as any basic reading of his letter proves. He is not even speaking of the same thing a sergius and all Pope after Honorius defended his orthodoxy. Honorius spoke of the teaching of Paul of conflicting wills of flesh and the spirit in human nature and thus concluded of Christs humanity that it had only one will. Which is true. Secondly this this is corroborated by the living testimony of the co-author of the letter; Honorius' scribe [The Abbot John] whom even St.Maximus the confessor testifies to his testimony as proof of his defence of Honorius. Secondly all subsequent popes who spoke about Honorius say exactly the same. In the west he was condemned for negligence as Leo stated quite explicitly in his various letters to the kings and bishops of the west. Leo stated he was condemned for failing to stop the rise of a heresy by failing to teach. As honorius rather told the Parties involved to desist from such talk. Venerable Bede is proof of how the west saw Honorius in that he describes him as a man known for his orthodoxy . The Vigilius case, lol that case was a joke and has been discussed to death on CAF.

Robert Bellarmine puts a good defense of all the controversial popes to prove none had been formal heretics

But I don't want to debate here as i really haven't got the energy for it. Just thought I should correct the incorrect interpretation here of these quotes as most of such quotes are post schism and the west post schism had an explicit belief in papal infallibility through not formally defined. Hence the Beatific vision controversy was settled with a Papal Bull and not pondered any further. The matter was settled. Although it was widely believed (Papal infallibility)  it was theological opinion at the time as it had not been formally defined hence Ireland had numerous fathers teaching against papal infallibility although even their idea of what papal infallibility was does not exist today as it was false.

[Regnare]

"Even if you would wish we didn't." Honestly. Don't try and make me into some kind of polemicist, Wandile. I spent a year wishing that I would find Catholic apologetics that sufficiently answered Orthodox criticisms so I would have a reason not to convert twice, but I didn't. If I was just trying to justify myself, I would still be Roman Catholic.
I understand that a formal heretic is not a Catholic. Orthodox believe the same thing. If the pope's infallibility comes down to being expelled from the Church (and therefore not being a pope anymore) when he tries to use his authority to promote heresy, then he is no different from any other bishop, Catholic or Orthodox. But if he's truly infallible, then it is impossible for him to be a formal heretic under any circumstances. That's why your argument comes back to arguing that all popes have been orthodox. Because if the pope can be a formal heretic, then he is no longer the last safeguard of tradition, since someone else's judgment is needed to scrutinise his pronouncements for heresy.

[Wandile]

I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me?

The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.

[Regnare]

I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me?

Absolutely. I think it's quite common on both sides of this debate to start seeing your opponents as interchangeable, without their own reasons for being engaged in this debate. Good for you for knowing your own limitations.

The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.

So what you're saying is that the idea of deposing a pope for heresy only applies to his private statements, not his ex cathedra ones. Fair enough. How do we know which is which, given that there can be no set form to an ex cathedra proclamation?

[Laurentius]

Pope Honorius was excommunicated after his death, but still.

[Wandile]

I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me?

Absolutely. I think it's quite common on both sides of this debate to start seeing your opponents as interchangeable, without their own reasons for being engaged in this debate. Good for you for knowing your own limitations.

The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.

So what you're saying is that the idea of deposing a pope for heresy only applies to his private statements, not his ex cathedra ones. Fair enough.

Yes

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

How do we know which is which, given that there can be no set form to an ex cathedra proclamation?

When he speaks definitively and conclusively on a matter as something to be held for all Catholics as true.

[Wandile]

Pope Honorius was excommunicated after his death, but still.

Yes on the charge of heresy by the eastern churches (which I've explained why their charge was wrong). In the West he was excommunicated not for heresy but for negligence/failure to stop the rise of heresy.

[Mor Ephrem]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

[podkarpatska]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

[brastaseptim]

Since I've recently ended up a Universal Reconciliationist, it really doesn't matter to me which Popes are heretics or not- because to me, just about everyone's been getting at least one thing wrong since the days of St. Augustine of Hippo.  Yes, you heard that right- the Byzantine Catholic here has, after a long period of study and thought, become a horribly horrible Universalist heretic who believes in a temporary, purifying Hades, but not a fiery everlasting Hell. Everybody run away!

[Nephi]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.

[Papist]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.

Because, as we all know, there is absolutely none of this in EO explanation of what is and is not an Ecumenical Council. </sarcasm>

[Wandile]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

The college of bishops. Nothing circular here. Just like when the bishops many times argued with John XXII but at least at the time the issue had not been defined. But yes the bishops would determine this as has happened in the past

[Wandile]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.

Nothing circular at all. It's plain fact. I wont even bring up the circular reasoning of the orthodox when it comes to what constitutes an ecumenical council for that is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning.

[Mor Ephrem]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates. 

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

The college of bishops. Nothing circular here. Just like when the bishops many times argued with John XXII but at least at the time the issue had not been defined. But yes the bishops would determine this as has happened in the past

Who is the judge of whether or not a Pope is teaching heresy?

The bishops. They know their faith... Well most of them... So lets say a Pope decided to teach that homosexuality is ok and not a sin or denied the real presence and is unwilling to retract His views... The cardinals and college of bishops would elect a new pope as the chair would be vacant.  The bishops would easily pick up his heresy and if he is unwilling to be corrected, he thereby leaves the post as Pope.

What's the process for how the "cardinals and college of bishops" determine that the chair is vacant because of heresy?  I can't seem to find it in your Code of Canon Law, though I'm finding a lot of other interesting things:

CIC

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.


Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.


Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.


Can. 343 It is for the synod of bishops to discuss the questions for consideration and express its wishes but not to resolve them or issue decrees about them unless in certain cases the Roman Pontiff has endowed it with deliberative power, in which case he ratifies the decisions of the synod[/color][/size].

Can. 344 The synod of bishops is directly subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff who:

1/ convokes a synod as often as it seems opportune to him and designates the place where its sessions are to be held;

2/ radios the election of members who must be elected according to the norm of special law and designates and appoints other members;

3/ determines at an appropriate time before the celebration of a synod the contents of the questions to be treated, according to the norm of special law;

4/ defines the agenda;

5/ presides at the synod personally or through others;

6/ concludes, transfers, suspends, and dissolves the synod.


Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.


Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:

1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;

2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;

3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;


Can. 1338 §1. The privations and prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 2 and 3, never affect powers, offices, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favors, titles, or insignia which are not subject to the power of the superior who establishes the penalty.


Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.

I would not know the exact process as such a thing we are talking about has never happened and need to deal with a heretical pope has not come up yet (Obviously some Orthodox and protestants would disagree).

[Wandile]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

The college of bishops. Nothing circular here. Just like when the bishops many times argued with John XXII but at least at the time the issue had not been defined. But yes the bishops would determine this as has happened in the past

Who is the judge of whether or not a Pope is teaching heresy?

The bishops. They know their faith... Well most of them... So lets say a Pope decided to teach that homosexuality is ok and not a sin or denied the real presence and is unwilling to retract His views... The cardinals and college of bishops would elect a new pope as the chair would be vacant.  The bishops would easily pick up his heresy and if he is unwilling to be corrected, he thereby leaves the post as Pope.

What's the process for how the "cardinals and college of bishops" determine that the chair is vacant because of heresy?  I can't seem to find it in your Code of Canon Law, though I'm finding a lot of other interesting things:

CIC

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.


Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.


Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.


Can. 343 It is for the synod of bishops to discuss the questions for consideration and express its wishes but not to resolve them or issue decrees about them unless in certain cases the Roman Pontiff has endowed it with deliberative power, in which case he ratifies the decisions of the synod[/color][/size].

Can. 344 The synod of bishops is directly subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff who:

1/ convokes a synod as often as it seems opportune to him and designates the place where its sessions are to be held;

2/ radios the election of members who must be elected according to the norm of special law and designates and appoints other members;

3/ determines at an appropriate time before the celebration of a synod the contents of the questions to be treated, according to the norm of special law;

4/ defines the agenda;

5/ presides at the synod personally or through others;

6/ concludes, transfers, suspends, and dissolves the synod.


Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.


Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:

1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;

2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;

3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;


Can. 1338 §1. The privations and prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 2 and 3, never affect powers, offices, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favors, titles, or insignia which are not subject to the power of the superior who establishes the penalty.


Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.

I would not know the exact process as such a thing we are talking about has never happened and need to deal with a heretical pope has not come up yet (Obviously some Orthodox and protestants would disagree).

Oh Mor. It would be nice if you could relent with regards to "internet shouting. Always misunderstanding things

Who mentioned a synod?
A conclave would be held to elect a new pope. Then a synod held to judge the antipope layman... Simple.

Secondly when the bishops correct the pope they are not judging him. They are correcting him. The catechism does not say the pope is above correction because they know it would contradict our blatant history and statements of popes.  Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the pope to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."

[Mor Ephrem]

Oh Mor. It would be nice if you could relent with regards to "internet shouting. Always misunderstanding things

I don't know what you mean by "internet shouting", I just wanted to make sure certain things were highlighted lest they get lost in the shuffle. 

As for misunderstanding, you haven't really demonstrated that I'm misunderstanding anything.  You just keep spinning the top so that it doesn't slow down and eventually fall over and stop spinning. 

Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them. 

A conclave would be held to elect a new pope. Then a synod held to judge the antipope layman... Simple.

But this procedure is not laid out in any official, authoritative documents.  You might as well add that Our Lady of Fatima will appear, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and choose/crown a new Pope herself. 

Secondly when the bishops correct the pope they are not judging him. They are correcting him. The catechism does not say the pope is above correction because they know it would contradict our blatant history and statements of popes.

OK.

Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

[Wandile]

Oh Mor. It would be nice if you could relent with regards to "internet shouting. Always misunderstanding things

I don't know what you mean by "internet shouting", I just wanted to make sure certain things were highlighted lest they get lost in the shuffle. 

As for misunderstanding, you haven't really demonstrated that I'm misunderstanding anything.  You just keep spinning the top so that it doesn't slow down and eventually fall over and stop spinning. 

Alright.

Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them. 

Because there is the view that such a thing will not happen as it has never happened before that a pope is a formal heretic. Our Canon law deals with things that are regular to the church. A heretical pope has never been a reality and the question of a heretical pope is theoretical because as Robert Bellarmine says, such a thing cannot happen. Due to the fact that if it hasn't happened after 2000 years, but every other major see has fallen at one time or another, this must be a sign from heaven. But you probably wont accept this. Bit it is evidently the mindset if the church tacitly and through some fathers explicitly.

A conclave would be held to elect a new pope. Then a synod held to judge the antipope layman... Simple.

But this procedure is not laid out in any official, authoritative documents.  You might as well add that Our Lady of Fatima will appear, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and choose/crown a new Pope herself. 

The procedure of an ecumenical council wasn't laid down until it happened. It's just the logical order of things as the canons direct the order of things to happen this way implicitly.

Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

Nonsense even in your church and council history proves this. Only a catholic can hold a catholic office. If the pope today denies the Holy Trinity and accepts arianism and refuses to renounce this view , he is no more a catholic and loses his office as the fathers testified that such a man loses his jurisdiction. Robert Bellarmine points this fact out and even calls upon the situation of St Cyprian and Novatian and what St.Cyprian said to Novatian proving this fact.

For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

In perfect harmony for they are not dealing with a pope but a layman! For all your efforts of quoting the canons, this fact seems to have alluded you and thus you endeavored into an exercise in futility

[Mor Ephrem]

Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them. 

Because there is the view that such a thing will not happen as it has never happened before that a pope is a formal heretic. Our Canon law deals with things that are regular to the church. A heretical pope has never been a reality and the question of a heretical pope is theoretical because as Robert Bellarmine says, such a thing cannot happen. Due to the fact that if it hasn't happened after 2000 years, but every other major see has fallen at one time or another, this must be a sign from heaven. But you probably wont accept this. Bit it is evidently the mindset if the church tacitly and through some fathers explicitly.

Then why do you talk about it like it's a thing?

Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

Nonsense even in your church and council history proves this. Only a catholic can hold a catholic office. If the pope today denies the Holy Trinity and accepts arianism and refuses to renounce this view , he is no more a catholic and loses his office as the fathers testified that such a man loses his jurisdiction. Robert Bellarmine points this fact out and even calls upon the situation of St Cyprian and Novatian and what St.Cyprian said to Novatian proving this fact.

Our Church and conciliar history proves it.  Yours has added a bunch of other stuff, however.  So I don't see why it's nonsensical for me to say that "a heretical Pope is Pope because he was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope".  It's just as circular as anything else in your argument. 

For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

In perfect harmony for they are not dealing with a pope but a layman! For all your efforts of quoting the canons, this fact seems to have alluded you and thus you endeavored into an exercise in futility

You're right.  I'm going to join RCIA right now.  I can't believe I missed it, it's so clear. 

[Wandile]

Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them.  

Because there is the view that such a thing will not happen as it has never happened before that a pope is a formal heretic. Our Canon law deals with things that are regular to the church. A heretical pope has never been a reality and the question of a heretical pope is theoretical because as Robert Bellarmine says, such a thing cannot happen. Due to the fact that if it hasn't happened after 2000 years, but every other major see has fallen at one time or another, this must be a sign from heaven. But you probably wont accept this. Bit it is evidently the mindset if the church tacitly and through some fathers explicitly.

Then why do you talk about it like it's a thing?

Because people here are talking about it like its a thing. I entertain the idea as various saints have. Even through they admit that such a thing will not happen. Yet infallibility means the Popes cannot declare heresy to be the teaching of the church. What they privately believed is not protected by infailability. So although because of history and other things we are convinced it wont happen, the fact that in his ordinary office it is a possibility, the idea must be entertained

Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

Nonsense even in your church and council history proves this. Only a catholic can hold a catholic office. If the pope today denies the Holy Trinity and accepts arianism and refuses to renounce this view , he is no more a catholic and loses his office as the fathers testified that such a man loses his jurisdiction. Robert Bellarmine points this fact out and even calls upon the situation of St Cyprian and Novatian and what St.Cyprian said to Novatian proving this fact.

Our Church and conciliar history proves it.  Yours has added a bunch of other stuff, however.  So I don't see why it's nonsensical for me to say that "a heretical Pope is Pope because he was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope".  It's just as circular as anything else in your argument.  

Lol that's our history also. Great St. Cyprian was using circular reasoning.

For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

In perfect harmony for they are not dealing with a pope but a layman! For all your efforts of quoting the canons, this fact seems to have alluded you and thus you endeavored into an exercise in futility

You're right.  I'm going to join RCIA right now.  I can't believe I missed it, it's so clear.  

Amen! Welcome home!

[podkarpatska]

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.

Because, as we all know, there is absolutely none of this in EO explanation of what is and is not an Ecumenical Council. </sarcasm>

But...but...but...that's....d...d...different.

[Regnare]

Does it need to be different? Catholic apologists are the ones who brought up this idea that the papacy provides a logically impeccable, non-circular means of determining what is true doctrine (e.g., that "Why I Didn't Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy" article on Catholic Answers). Orthodox have never claimed this, to my knowledge, about ecumenical councils or anything else, including the Vincentian Canon, and so we're not exactly being hypocritical here.

[biro]

Orthodox have never claimed this, to my knowledge, about ecumenical councils or anything else, including the Vincentian Canon, and so we're not exactly being hypocritical here.

Are you kidding?

 

[Regnare]

Are you kidding?

 

Nope. I'm willing to admit that my experience is limited, but I can say at the very least that I've seen Orthodox apologists who criticise this idea on the Catholic side without trying to propose it on their own.
Also, I'm not sure where these other Orthodox are hiding: I've seen this argument come up very very often among Catholics --in fact, it was one of my first posts on this forum-- but never among Orthodox.

[podkarpatska]

Are you kidding?

 

Nope. I'm willing to admit that my experience is limited, but I can say at the very least that I've seen Orthodox apologists who criticise this idea on the Catholic side without trying to propose it on their own.
Also, I'm not sure where these other Orthodox are hiding: I've seen this argument come up very very often among Catholics --in fact, it was one of my first posts on this forum-- but never among Orthodox.

I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.


PROCLAMATION OF THE SYNODICON OF ORTHODOXY:
 
As the Prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the Teachers have dogmatized, as the Universe has agreed, as Grace has shown forth, as Truth has revealed, as falsehood has been dissolved, as Wisdom has presented, as Christ has awarded, let us declare, let us assert, let us preach in like manner Christ our true God and honor His Saints in words, in writings, in thoughts, in deeds, in churches, in holy icons — worshiping Him as God and Lord and honoring them as His true servants of the master of all, and offering to them due veneration.
This is the Faith of the Apostles! This is the Faith of the Fathers! This is the Faith of the Orthodox! This is the Faith, which has established the Universe!

[biro]

Are you kidding?

 

Nope. I'm willing to admit that my experience is limited, but I can say at the very least that I've seen Orthodox apologists who criticise this idea on the Catholic side without trying to propose it on their own.
Also, I'm not sure where these other Orthodox are hiding: I've seen this argument come up very very often among Catholics --in fact, it was one of my first posts on this forum-- but never among Orthodox.

Then you haven't read a lot of threads on this board.

[Regnare]

I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.

This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?" It's simply a statement that this is our faith and the faith of the Church, without any explanation of how this particular conciliar proclamation is authoritative apart from that it's what we recognise as Tradition.

[Paisius]

It's simply a statement that this is our faith and the faith of the Church, without any explanation of how this particular conciliar proclamation is authoritative apart from that it's what we recognise as Tradition.

What more authority do you need?

[Laurentius]

The way I see it, the Councils and Tradition witness about each other, and they equally witness about Jesus Christ in whom we supernaturally believe.

Catholics say they believe in the Pope because Papacy and Tradition witness about each other. We do not agree with this, thanks to history – their novelties are a fact.

Latins cannot depose their Pope because they believe he "is" Tradition. We know that he can teach new things, even if they say it is not new.

[podkarpatska]

I'd suggest that Regnare refrain from following internet apologetics while a catachumen and discuss these questions about the role of councils and church doctrine with his priest or teacher.