Posted on 09/15/2019 10:55:13 AM PDT by daniel1212
Accepting the Vatican II Sect as the Catholic Church has consequences. So does believing that Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ despite being a public apostate: If he is a valid Pope, then there is no power on earth that can undo his papacy. If he is truly the successor of St. Peter, then he can resign voluntarily, but no one can take the pontificate from him...
Clearly, it is high time we looked at what the Catholic Church teaches on the (im)possibility of judging and removing a valid Pope. In this post, therefore, we will examine two things: (1) What “judging the Pope” really means; and (2) whether a validly reigning Pope can be removed or “deposed.”
What does it mean to “judge the Pope”?
The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that no one is allowed or able to judge the Pope. The Vatican Council (1869-70) taught dogmatically:..
And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.
(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3; Denz. 1830; underlining added.)
Since no one may judge the Pope, then, it is of the utmost importance to know just what constitutes judging the Pope. To spill the beans right up front: “Judging the Pope” does not mean judging whether a particular claimant is Pope, which would obviously involve circular reasoning. Rather, it means putting one’s own judgment above that of the (acknowledged) Pope by refusing to accept the final sentence rendered by the Vicar of Christ on any given matter pertaining to Faith, morals, or discipline, or by presuming to make his teachings, laws, or disciplinary decisions subject to review, revision, or validation by another. The Pope is the highest authority in the Church, and for this reason no one can question, appeal from, or overturn his judgment.
But, one may ask, why is it that no one can judge the Pope? The simple truth is that judging — understood in the proper canonical sense — is an act that belongs by right only to a superior, and the Pope, being the highest authority in the Church, has no superior on earth....
Before we proceed to various quotes proving our position with respect to how the Church understands her teaching that a Pope cannot be judged, we must emphasize that all the evidence we adduce is deliberately chosen only from the time of 1870 onwards — that is, from the time of the First Vatican Council, which settled a lot of Catholic doctrine regarding the papacy and made it untenable to hold a number of theories that had still been permissible to hold up until that time. In this we distinguish ourselves from the recognize-and-resist proponents, specifically Messrs. Salza and Siscoe, who in large part advance ideas that were abandoned after Vatican I because they could no longer be held in light of the council’s teachings — which is why nearly all of the prooftexts they use come from theologians and canonists who wrote before the First Vatican Council, such as Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, Fr. Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Fr. Paul Laymann, and others. Yet, if these theories were still acceptable after Vatican I, how come Salza and Siscoe never cite any theologians or canonists from the twentieth century on these points?
We will revisit this question later on. Right now, let’s examine what the Church teaches about “judging the Pope”.
First, we’ll have a look at the actual principle as enunciated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur” (Canon 1556) — “The First See is judged by no one.” This is the canonical rendition of Vatican I’s teaching about the impermissibility of judging the Pope. What exactly does it mean? To ensure we understand this principle correctly, we will simply look at what various Catholic studies and commentaries on the Code of Canon Law say about it.
We begin with the Benedictine Fr. Charles Augustine’s Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, published in 1921:
The first or primatial see is subject to no one’s judgment. This proposition must be taken in the fullest extent, not only with regard to the object of infallibility. For in matters of faith and morals it was always customary to receive the final sentence from the Apostolic See, whose judgment no one dared to dispute, as the tradition of the Fathers demonstrates. Neither was it ever allowed to reconsider questions or controversies once settled by the Holy See. But even the person of the Supreme Pontiff was ever considered as unamenable to human judgment, he being responsible and answerable to God alone, even though accused of personal misdeeds and crimes.
A remarkable instance is that of Pope Symmachus (498-514). He, indeed, submitted to the convocation of a council (the Synodus Palmaris, 502), because he deemed it his duty to see to it that no stain was inflicted upon his character, but that synod itself is a splendid vindication of our canon. The synod adopted the Apology of Ennodius of Pavia, in which occurs the noteworthy sentence: “God wished the causes of other men to be decided by men; but He has reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the ruler of this see.” No further argument for the traditional view is required. A general council could not judge the Pope, because, unless convoked or ratified by him, it could not render a valid sentence. Hence nothing is left but an appeal to God, who will take care of His Church and its head.
(Rev. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. VII [St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1921], pp. 11-12; italics given; underlining added.)
Then we turn to the popular Woywod-Smith commentary, which has the following to say about Canon 1556:
The Primatial See can be judged by no one (Canon 1556). The Supreme Pontiff has the highest legislative, administrative and judicial power in the Church. The Code states that the Roman Pontiff cannot be brought to trial by anyone. The very idea of the trial of a person supposes that the court conducting the trial has jurisdiction over the person, but the Pope has no superior, wherefore no court has power to subject him to judicial trial.
(Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith [New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 1549, p. 225; underlining added.)
Next, we look at Fr. Sylvester Berry’s explanation of how Canon 1556 is not simply a disciplinary matter subject to change but actually expresses a principle rooted in the unchangeable divine law:..
The Roman Pontiff is not subject to any power on earth whether civil or ecclesiastical. This follows of necessity from his position as supreme head of the Church, which is subject to no authority save that of Christ alone. “ Being supreme head of the Church, he cannot be judged by any other ecclesiastical power, and as the Church is a spiritual society superior to any temporal power whatever, he cannot be judged by any temporal ruler. Therefore, the supreme head of the Church can direct and judge the rulers of temporal powers, but he can neither be directed nor judged by them without a perversion of due order founded in the very nature of things” [St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book 2, Ch. 26]. This doctrine is taught by the Fathers and incorporated in the canons of the Church: “The first See is judged by no one” [Canon 1556].
A synod of bishops held in Rome in 503, to investigate charges against Pope Symmachus, declared that “God wished the causes of other men to be decided by men, but He reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the ruler of this See.”..
(Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [London: Herder, 1927], pp. 544-45; underlining added.)
As Fr. Berry points out, the doctrine about the Holy See not being subject to anyone’s judgment was already taught by St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), whose teaching on the papacy was adopted in essence — sometimes even verbatim — by the First Vatican Council. It is good to remember this against our opponents, who love to rely on those who contradicted Bellarmine on various matters regarding the papacy: Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas, whom they quote extensively. Yet, it is Bellarmine’s teaching that was adopted by the council, not that of the others, and it is Bellarmine who was canonized a Saint and declared a Doctor of the Church, not Cajetan, Suarez, or John of St. Thomas. (There is a Saint Cajetan, it is true, but he is not the same Cajetan spoken of here.)...
In sum, the maxim “no one can judge the Pope” means that the Pope has no superior, and therefore his teachings, his judgments, his decisions are final and not subject to review, revision, or validation by anyone. In so far as a particular judgment or decision is in itself changeable, it could only be modified by another (i.e. future) Pope, who, although not superior to a prior Pope, is nevertheless his equal. (Thus, for example, we find in Church history that the supression of the Jesuit order imposed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 was rescinded by Pope Pius VII in 1814.)
Now that we are clear on what the maxim does mean, it is necessary also to consider what “judging the Pope” does not mean: Notice that none of the evidence quoted above talks about judging whether a particular papal claimant is actually Pope; for the principle in question is that no one can judge the Pope, not that no one can judge whethersomeone is Pope...
Thus, we come to the ironic conclusion that not only are our “recognize-and-resist” opponents wrong to accuse us of “judging the Pope” for saying that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t Pope; rather, considering what judging the Pope really means, it is clear that they are the ones who are judging the (supposed) Pope, because they refuse, question, or pretend to overturn his teachings, laws, judgments, and decisions all the time. The Society of St. Pius X is a textbook example of this, for they are in essence running a parallel church with its own phony marriage tribunals and a faux quasi-magisterium, and they constantly subject the “Holy See” to their judgment instead of the other way around. For some more specific examples, see our post, “The Pope Speaks — You Decide?”
Still not convinced? Have a look at the following papal quotes and see if you do not find in them condemnations of, in essence, the very things the SSPX and similar “recognize-and-resist” adherents habitually do or advocate:...
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua)...
This is why we call the recognize-and-resist adherents “Semi-Traditionalists” or “Neo-Traditionalists”: They embrace Tradition only up to an extent, only in part; and their understanding of Tradition is quite novel and therefore not genuinely traditional at all.
Having clarified what is and is not meant by “judging the Pope”, we can now consider the second question which presents itself: Can a true Pope be deposed?...
We see, then, that deposition is by no means synonymous with removal from office. In fact, although it includes removal from office (“it takes away the office”), it is much more than that (see also Canon 2288). This is important to keep in mind when reading canonical or theological sources that speak about deposition....
The Code of Canon Law, in fact, terms this automatic loss of office a “tacit resignation”, not a privation, removal, or deposition:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith (Canon 188 n.4)...
although we do not concede that it is possible for a true Pope to ever publicly defect from the Faith, we nevertheless insist, with the bishops at Vatican I, St. Robert Bellarmine, and the Code of Canon Law, that if a Pope could do such a thing, he would indeed immediately cease to be Pope....
take that of Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J. (1846-1931). In his Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi (“Treatise on the Church of Christ”), the great Jesuit theologian addressed the question whether it was possible for a Pope to be deposed [by the Church], and he did so in light not only of St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching but, writing in the twentieth century, also in light of the decrees of the First Vatican Council and the Code of Canon Law:...
, [a removal] can by no means come about through a deposition by which the Pontiff would be deprived of his authority by the Church or by any group existing in the Church. The general reason is that a superior is not deposed by an inferior. ...
Having thus thoroughly demolished the idea that a true Pope can ever be deposed, Billot then proceeds to tackle the question of defection from the Church, i.e. what would happen if the Pope became a heretic, a schismatic, or an apostate (notice that this parallels our discussion from earlier, where we distinguished removal from office that occurs in deposition from tacit resignation that occurs concomitantly with public defection). Not surprisingly, Billot once again sides with us sedevacantists:
…if, in the case of heresy, a pope still remaining pope can be deposed by the Church, one of two things necessarily results: that a deposition does not affirm the deposer’s [ecclesiastical] superiority with respect to the deposed, or that a pope who remains pope in reality has, at least in reference to some event, a superior on earth. Moreover, once a way to deposition is opened, whether owing to the very nature of the thing or to positive law, there is no longer at hand any reason why the possibility of deposition should be restricted to only a case of heresy. For thenceforth all principles to which its incompatibility is generally connected are undermined, and nothing remains except a voluntary rule to which an arbitrary exception is added.
(Billot, de Ecclesia, p. 630)..
However, there is one argument of Salza and Siscoe that deserves to be addressed still, and that is the claim that although judging belongs by right to a superior, in the case of heresy, even an inferior may judge his superior. Salza and Siscoe claim that this was the position of St. Robert Bellarmine, as an “exception” to the principle that the First See can be judged by no one (pp. 300-303)....
Put simply, when St. Robert Bellarmine says that a Pope can be judged in the case of heresy, he means it in a manner of speaking, much like St. Paul said that an angel from Heaven who preaches a false Gospel would be anathema (see Gal 1:8-9). Bellarmine does not mean that an inferior can legitimately render a canonical judgment against the Pope, his superior, by way of some mysterious exception — although this is what Salza and Siscoe insist is Bellarmine’s position (pp. 300-303) — any more than St. Paul meant that a genuine angel could actually preach a false gospel. Rather, Bellarmine simply means that if a Pope were to become a public heretic, he could then be judged by his inferiors because he would no longer be Pope — which is exactly what he argues in the very same chapter from which this quote is taken....
because public heresy alone — together with schism and apostasy — is a sin that of its very nature can make a true Pope cease being Pope: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23).
That is why a superior can then be judged, so to speak, by his inferiors: because he is then no longer the lawful superior, but, being a heretic, he is cut off from the Body of the Church...
At last we have arrived at the end of our little excursion. We must disappoint the Semi-Traditionalist loudmouths who are currently roaming the internet calling for Francis to be deposed: Sorry, folks, but if Francis is a true Pope now, then no one can take the pontificate away from him. He cannot be removed from office; he cannot be deposed. You’re simply stuck with him. Welcome to Catholic teaching on the papacy.
The good news is, however, that Francis is not a valid Pope now, and never was. He is not a Catholic and therefore not eligibile to be Pope, no matter how many “cardinals” elect him. Remember that those who scream the loudest that sedevacantists are wrong and Francis is a valid Pope, waste no time refusing this “true Pope” the submission they owe him. As we said in our TRADCAST 012, it’s not just that the recognize-and-resist traditionalists are wrong about Francis being Pope, it is much worse: They are wrong about the papacy.
Accepting Jorge Bergoglio as Pope has consequences. Our opponents are now paying the price of their erroneous position that a public apostate can be a true and lawful successor of St. Peter.
[The above prolix polemic has some somewhat redundant small sections removed for the sake of brevity.]
Well, we have it about 9 to 0 negative toward Francis. However, as the article correctly states, no one can depose a pope unless he affirms it.
Well, since I am a former RC, he may also advocate my being forcibly censored.
I've lived Catholic all my life. I doubt that will change for the few years I have remaining. I never understood until I was in my mid-forties that the evangelist, John, wrote his contribution for me personally.
I was raised very devout, and served as altar boy, lector and CCD teacher in my life as a RC, but in deep repentance and faith become manifestly born again at age 25, and which led to my prayerfully leaving Rome, due to its conflict with Scripture in word and in spirit , and into evangelical fellowship. Thanks be to God. Its not too late to do the same.
Jesus said, "The Gates of Hell will not prevail." The Catholic Church survived Alexander VI who had to be about as bad as it gets. I think our current Pope Bozo wants to take a run at that. He may not have a shot at that since he admits to no offspring.
But nowhere in Acts onward is Peter and successors said or set forth as being the rock upon which the church was built, as instead that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
Jesus also said, "I am the way the truth and the life." When it comes to saving souls, I wish Pope Bozo would concentrate on that rather than the hoax of global warming.
But Pope Francis Bans Plastic From The Vatican To 'Save The Environment'
“was not a validly-elected pope”
That is the history of Catholicism
To paraphrase Yoda:
There IS no 'true' pope;
there is only pope.
Yoda again states:
"All elected popes, valid they are."
“thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364.1). .. “
As papal imposter Francis has discovered (but it’s between him and the Holy Ghost).
Seems God made a mistake...
Perhaps no one can depose the pope, but they sure should judge him since he isn’t speaking of God but of matters of man.
Surprised the calendar policy haven’t showed up!
The argument is that the ecumenical, papal affirmed body of cardinals deciding who is the valid pope is not an infallible decision, even though if it was one defining true doctrine it would be.
The College of Cardinals does not have the charism of infallibility. The Pope acting on his own can (the "Extraordinary Papal magisterium"), and an Ecumenical Council can. (An Ecumenical Council requires all bishops in the world to at least be invited; a group of cardinals only would not qualify.)
I'm not sure what "an ecumenical, papal affirmed body of cardinals deciding who is the valid Pope is not an infallible decision" even means.
Are you referring to a Papal election? That is "infallible" in the sense that, once a validly elected Pope has validly accepted election, the College of Cardinals can't simply reverse their act "because we want to".
Perhaps you have a fundamental misunderstanding of "infallibility". An "infallible act" is not guaranteed to be perfect or ideal, merely free from doctrinal error and therefore irreversible (although perhaps subject to better explanation and broader understanding -- as I said, it's not necessarily perfect).
If you are referring to a Pope being deposed because either (a) it is determined that he was not validly elected; or (b) it is determined that he is a contumacious public heretic and has thereby relinquished his office, that would require an Ecumenical Council, not merely an agreement by a group of Cardinals. I'm still not sure what "infallibility" would mean in that context. It's an administrative act, not a doctrinal one.
I hope that defense wasn't too "venomous".
In English history, the solutions were armed rebellion to force concessions (Magna Carta), refusal of Parliament to vote taxes until reforms were made (many cases), or execution (Charles II).
As for the Holy Spirit guiding conclaves... The Holy Spirit may provide guidance or inspiration, but the cardinals do not necessarily follow it.
Pray for the conversion of the Pope to Catholicism. In the meantime, put in the appropriate mental reservations if you pray for the intentions of the Pope.
But which is not how the NT church began, which was in Scriptural dissent against those who sat in the seat of Moses, but not as anarchists.
As for the Holy Spirit guiding conclaves... The Holy Spirit may provide guidance or inspiration, but the cardinals do not necessarily follow it.
If there is no assurance that they will in no less a matter than the successor to Peter, then there is none that they will follow the Spirit in matters of doctrine. And Scripturally there is no promise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome..
Pray for the conversion of the Pope to Catholicism.
By no means, for Catholicism, which gave us this pope, is itself a deviant form of the NT church, for distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
May God peradventure grant you and all "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Yes, although some RCs argue otherwise, I believe you are correct on this (as representing RC teaching), and my hasty remark was contrary with how I myself have described collegial infallibility, even though it seems that how many bishops are necessary for collegial infallibility is subject to debate. Sorry for so speaking off-the-cuff.
I'm not sure what "an ecumenical, papal affirmed body of cardinals deciding who is the valid Pope is not an infallible decision" even means
Correctly insofar as the above, it means an ecumenical body of cardinals deciding who is the valid Pope is, and confirmed by the pope (via acceptance), is not held to be an infallible exercise of the Sacred Magisterium.
Are you referring to a Papal election? That is "infallible" in the sense that, once a validly elected Pope has validly accepted election, the College of Cardinals can't simply reverse their act "because we want to".
Here is some of what Robert Siscoe at https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/ argues,
The renowned Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, wrote what is likely the most thorough treatise of the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope that has ever been penned, explaining each aspect of the doctrine with Thomistic precision. He compares the election of a pope by the cardinals to a doctrine defined by a council. He then explains that just as the infallibility of a conciliar decree is dependent upon its acceptance by the Roman pontiff, so too the infallible certitude that the legitimacy of the man elected by a conclave is dependent upon his acceptance by the Church. In both cases, it is the acceptance that ultimately provides the infallible certitude, and which renders the proposition de fide. Because of this, John of St. Thomas goes on to say:
Wherefore, if the Cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the proposition [i.e., that the one elected is the true pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the Pope himself defines anything. For it is not [just] any acceptance on the part of the Church, but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith, since the Pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith.”[2]
The Legitimacy of a Pope is a Dogmatic Fact. As soon as the entire Church accepts the man as pope, his legitimacy becomes a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of infallibility.
But as per the OP article, that would require the consent of the pope, due to the power Rome has ascribed to that office.
I hope that defense wasn't too "venomous".
Not at all. Precision is important.
As if Frances were a true pope....
“And damned are those who do resist.”
If said king places rules contrary to the Word of GOD then it is the Christian’s place to resist to the point of death.
“Pray for the conversion of the Pope to Catholicism.”
So he can still be head of the whore of Babylon? The right prayer would be that all romans would see GOD’s Word and follow it thereby being saved by grace through faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.