FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of the Pope
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I've been trying to learn more about the peaceful and universal acceptance of the pope.  I have no doubt that all of the post-Vatican II popes have had peaceful and universal acceptance.  My question is more hypothetical.  What would constitute a lack of peaceful and universal acceptance?  For example, if a future conclave elected a man who was thought a heretic by a handful of cardinals and those cardinals were to refuse to recognize him as pope following the conclave, would that mean the new (putative) pope lacked peaceful and universal acceptance of his claim to the papacy?  How many cardinals would have to reject a man's claim to the papacy in order for peaceful and universal acceptance to be lacking as an infallible assurance that a man is truly pope?  Would peaceful and universal acceptance be lacking if some bishops, possibly small in number, refuse to recognize a man as pope, while the cardinals recognize his claim to be pope?  How many of the faithful, whether cleric or lay, would have to reject a man's election or claim to the papacy in order for peaceful and universal acceptance to be lacking?  Of course, I understand that if a man is lacking peaceful and universal acceptance, he might still be the pope.
As a related question, can a pope lose peaceful and universal acceptance and with it the infallible assurance that he is still pope?  For example, if a pope were to issue an official teaching that was undeniably heretical, so that even with the principle of benignity heresy cannot be denied, and this led some cardinals or bishops to proclaim his fall from the papal office (or however that would be handled), do the faithful lose the infallible assurance that the man is still pope?
(08-01-2019, 10:55 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]For example, if a pope were to issue an official teaching that was undeniably heretical

Can't happen. There's a reason we get revisions to the Catechism instead of "If anyone says that the death penalty does not violate human dignity, let him be anathema." Papal infallibility, under the appropriate circumstances as defined by the First Vatican Council, is a doctrine of the faith, and a situation that would allow the Pope to infallibly define something false makes no sense. God is perfect goodness, and perfect truth, and He can't promise infallibility while at the same time allowing the faithful to be bound to heresy.
Thank you.  While I would weclome that as true, I have been told differently.  Here is a citation that I was given from a commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Quote:Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c. 194 §1, 2º). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404), no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election.  [J. Corridan et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America (New York: Paulist 1985), c. 333.]

Maybe that is out of context.  I don't have access to the actual text.  At any rate, I hope to hear some answers to the main question here: what would constitute a lack of peaceful and universal acceptance.
(08-01-2019, 12:49 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you.  While I would weclome that as true, I have been told differently.  Here is a citation that I was given from a commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Quote:Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c. 194 §1, 2º). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404), no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election.  [J. Corridan et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America (New York: Paulist 1985), c. 333.]

Maybe that is out of context.  I don't have access to the actual text.  At any rate, I hope to hear some answers to the main question here: what would constitute a lack of peaceful and universal acceptance.
[*]

The best example would be the Western Schism.
  • From 1309 to 1377, the seat of the papacy resided in Avignon, France, rather than Rome.
  • Gregory XI returned to Rome in 1377, thus ending the Avignon Papacy, at which point Romans rioted to ensure the election of a Roman for pope.
  • Urban VI, born Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari, was elected in 1378.
  • As pope, Urban VI proved suspicious, reformist, and prone to violent outbursts of temper, and thus many of the cardinals who had elected him soon regretted their decision and moved to Anagni, where they elected Robert of Geneva as a rival pope on September 20 of the same year.
  • The second election threw the church into turmoil, and it quickly escalated from a church problem to a diplomatic crisis that divided Europe.



[/list]
If I have some time to reply later, I will see what can be done to help here, but perhaps its worth a note.

Vox asked that all discussion about the theory of Benedict XVI still being Pope be confined to a single thread, because it was starting to infect everything.

This is a related topic, but seems fine to discuss so long as it's just the theological aspect of things. If people coming here want to apply this to any present circumstances, then it seems best that this be done in the other thread.
(08-01-2019, 03:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]If I have some time to reply later, I will see what can be done to help here, but perhaps its worth a note.

Vox asked that all discussion about the theory of Benedict XVI still being Pope be confined to a single thread, because it was starting to infect everything.

This is a related topic, but seems fine to discuss so long as it's just the theological aspect of things. If people coming here want to apply this to any present circumstances, then it seems best that this be done in the other thread.

I hope that you do get a chance to reply.  I am only interested in the theological aspect.  I don't adhere to any of the "-vacantist" theories out there.
(08-01-2019, 10:55 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]As a related question, can a pope lose peaceful and universal acceptance and with it the infallible assurance that he is still pope?  For example, if a pope were to issue an official teaching that was undeniably heretical, so that even with the principle of benignity heresy cannot be denied, and this led some cardinals or bishops to proclaim his fall from the papal office (or however that would be handled), do the faithful lose the infallible assurance that the man is still pope?

I'm certainly no canon lawyer so I'm not sure to what degree the principle of benignity affects this scenario, but I am under the impression that an already elected Pope stating something like, "In accordance with official doctrines issued by previous Counsels, I say to you that...(insert material heresy)," would not be grounds for loss of papal office, regardless if some Cardinals/Bishops proclaim it. However a Pope stating, "Contrary to official doctrines issued by previous Counsels, I say to you that... (insert formal heresy)," I think would be grounds for loss of papal office even if not a single Cardinal/Bishop proclaims it. So the faithful should not lose assurance that the Pope maintains his office even if  material heresy is declared.