Skip to comments.Yes, a Pope can be canonically deposed (Synod of Sutri 1046 AD vs Canon 332)
Posted on 10/22/2020 8:51:12 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
There is a lot of talk about the Pope resigning, being constrained to resign, or being deposed...
Lets consider the question, then, Can a Pope be deposed? by first defining our terms. Here, pope means the Bishop of Rome, who ex officio is the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Saint Peter...
The first determination we must make is to distinguish the auxiliary verb can. A thing can be done physically, morally and legally. An enemy of the Church could arrest the Pope, force him under pain of death to sign a decree of abdication. That is a physical deposition. A moral deposition, is where the Pope is asked to resign and he acquiesces and signs a decree of resignation. A legal deposition, would be where the Church by trial and in Synod or Council removes him from office.
Clerics can be canonically, that is legally, removed from office by their superiors... But since the Pope has no superior on earth, being the Vicar of Christ, many think he cannot be canonically removed from office.
That argument sounds valid on the face of it, but the Synod of Sutri in 1046 argues against it. In that Synod, which the Church to this day considers canonically valid, the Clergy of the Diocese of Rome, at the invitation of the German King, Henry III, met to decide the fate of Pope Benedict IX and two other anti-popes Gregory VI and Sylvester III. Gregory VI claimed the papacy on account of having bought it from Benedict IX; Sylvester III claimed it, having been elected after mobs drove Benedict IX from Rome. Neither were canonically elected, nor true popes, regardless of what some historians say, because to be pope you must be canonically elected after the death or resignation of your predecessor...
(Excerpt) Read more at fromrome.info ...
Commie Popie Frankie has already had almost as long as the Fraud had in office, to clean house and protect his fraudulent papacy.
Since 2013, CPF has been deceiving the world in his current role.
Thanks for posting this. Prayers up for Holy Mother Church.
Don’t get too excited, most of the Cardinals who would select the next Pope were elevated by Pope Francis.
The present pope of the Catholic Church is Pope Benedict. HE STILL BELIEVES HE HAS THE CHARISMS OF THE PAPACY. Therefore, there are limited possibilities:
1) Pope Benedict is wrong; he does not have charisms of the papacy. But if this is true, then he has mistakenly (not willingly) renounced the papacy. Since a pope must WILLINGLY renounces the papacy, this is a self-contradicting notion.
2) Pope Benedict has expressed himself poorly; he intended to relinquish the charisms of the papacy despite his later statements.
3) Both Pope Benedict and Pope Francis are popes. This seems impossible.
4) Pope Francis was invalidly elevated. This has happened before, and therefore seems imminently possible.
Since only #2 and #4 are likely possible, and the truthfulness of #2 is unclear, #4 must be regarded as possible. In that case, we must look to the fruits, wherein we find that Pope Francis has sown utterly astounding moral confusion. While he has not directly invoked his infallibility to unambiguously proclaim heresy, he has plainly and unmistakably led anyone who follow him as a sheep follows a shepherd into heresy.
Yes, but some of his picks have been the boldest in confronting him (e.g., Mueller), and many were promoted to their archdiocesan sees by previous popes in cases where it would be highly unusual to NOT elevate.
Communist leaders never resign.
As an aside: this is why the SCOTUS justices are our real overlords. They have life tenure, they can override the constitution on a whim, and it's virtually impossible to override them.
Sure . . . a few hundred people with pipes, pitchforks, guns and knives. . . .
Some years back, Bork called it the “liberal judiciocracy.”
>Yes. And it’s possible to overturn a SCOTUS decision too. You just need to pass a constitutional amendment
Please reread Federalist #78 by Alexander Hamilton. I can’t imagine a self-respecting Freeper who hasn’t read it once. He certainly did not see such a requirement in a government of divided powers and coequal branches.
And then refer to the response of Andrew Jackson to Worcester v Georgia (1832). A President and 34 senators (blocking impeachment) can nix any SCOTUS pronouncement.
To use the technical term from Catholic theology: BINGO!
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.