We have seen, from the teaching of the Council Fathers of Vatican I, that it is within the realm of possibility for Pope to lose the faith internally, and it is also possible for him to err in teaching the faith externally, provided he does not meet the conditions set down by in the Council's Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus.
Before proceeding further, however, permit me to make something very clear. As I examine these issues, I in no way wish to assert or infer that Pope Francis has in any way whatsoever acted in a manner which, even remotely, makes him vulnerable to an accusation of the crime of heresy regarding anything he has said or written.
My examination of these issues is an academic inquiry into the historical, theological and canonical understanding of the Universal Church concerning such a possibility and the various remedies that might be applied in what must be understood to be extremely rare situations.
With this understanding, I wish now to examine the question of whether an heretical Pope could be deposed from the Papal Office as well as the person(s) who could legitimately conduct the process.
The commonly held position of theologians and canonists down through history is that an heretical Pope can be deposed for the crime of heresy.
Most regarded among these is Fr. Francisco Suarez, whom Pope St. Pius V called Doctor Eximus et Pius (Excellent and Pious Doctor). He is considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits. In his commentary on this point, he states that, according to Pope Clement I (who was ordained by Saint Peter the Apostle himself) “Peter taught that an heretical Pope should be deposed.”
Who would be in charge of the Deposition and what process would be followed?
The prevailing thought regarding the Deposition of a Pope accused of the crime of heresy holds that only an Ecumenical Council could oversee such a canonical process.
John of St. Thomas explained why. He wrote: “since the matter at hand concerns the Universal Church, it must be overseen by the tribunal that represents the Universal Church, which is that of a General (Ecumenical) Council”.
However, this begs the question: how can the Church convene an Ecumenical Council to oversee the deposing of a Pope, when an Ecumenical Council can only be called and overseen the Pope himself?
In answering this question, theologians and canonists make a distinction between what they term as a "perfect council" and an "imperfect council".
A perfect council is one in which the body is united to its head, and therefore consists of the Bishops and the Pope together. This is sometimes referred to as an "absolutely perfect council". Such a council has the authority to define doctrines and issue decrees that regulate the Universal Church.
An imperfect council is one that is convened “with those members who can be found when the Church is in condition in which the Pope himself cannot act for whatever reason.”
Cardinal Cajetan refers to an imperfect council as “a perfect council according to the present state of the Church”, and explains that such a council “can involve itself with the universal Church only up to a certain point”.
Unlike a perfect council, an imperfect council cannot define doctrine or issue decrees that regulate the universal Church, but only possesses the authority to decide the matter that necessitated its convocation.
The Council of Constance is often cited as an example of an imperfect council. It was convened during The Great Western Schism, when there were three claimants to the Papacy and sufficient uncertainty as to which of the three was the true Pope. The Council ended the Schism by deposing or accepting the resignation of the Papal claimants, which then paved the way for the election of Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name Martin V.
Another example is that of [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols. A council was convoked for the purpose of discussing this case.
Lastly, we note the case of Pope Symmachus, when a council at Rome was gathered to treat those things which were presented to it.
History reveals that the Pontiffs, who, being accused of various crimes and wanting to exonerate themselves of the charges, did so in the presence of a General (Ecumenical ) Council."
It appears, then, that only an imperfect Ecumenical Council would be the body capable of overseeing the Deposition of a Pope from the Papal Office.
But who specifically would have the authority as well as the practical ability to convene such an imperfect Ecumenical Council?
From my reading of the extant testimony of history, it appears that the canonical competence to convoke such an imperfect Ecumenical Council resides in the College of Cardinals who would take it upon themselves to summon the Bishops of the Universal Church to hear the case and issue a Declaratory Sentence, if warranted.
While there are no explicit legislative texts governing such a situation, it would seem fitting and appropriate that the College of Cardinal be unanimous in their decision to call for the convocation of an imperfect Ecumenical Council to consider the Deposition of a Pope from the Papal Office.
Still, there is need to consider the following two questions. What precisely constitutes the crime of heresy for which a Pope could be deposed? What specific authority would an imperfect Ecumenical Council exercise in declaring that a Pope has been deposed?
We shall explore these two questions in the next article.
No comments:
Post a Comment