I read up on this recently as Aviso challenged me on my statement citing canon law that no one can judge the Pope. I am a very glad he chose to question what I wrote as I learned a lot. There were a few Church councils that removed Popes (pretty much antipopes and a couple of actual Popes stepped down). At Vatican I however the rules changed. It was formally recognized that no one can judge a Pope. Ever. A Pope is above even an ecumenical council. My understanding is that a Pope who becomes formally heretical loses his office and thus could be judged. A Church council could do this I believe. I am not sure if there is an exact method as this hasn't been done before. A Pope who falls into formal heresy, not material heresy, but formal heresy loses his office immediately upon doing so. Of course this still requires a declaratory sentence to be made by a council. Just as when a person commits a civil crime they still need to go through the judicial process before sentence can be passed. You are right though Dolours, the deck is so stacked now that even if a council was called what kind of a declaratory sentence could it even render? I am not sure where that leaves us. Not in a very good space. Perhaps holding onto the truth celebrating Masses in basements and barns because we will be branded "heretics" and "schismatics" for not adopting the "Nu-church" beliefs. That seems to pretty much fall in line with what prophecy says will happen though. Here is a good basic overview for anyone interested: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/...eresy/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-2
I respect your right to a different view, HH. As for myself, I find it the only way I can understand why a pope is spouting heresies in direct contradiction to the belief that God will not allow such a thing to happen. I think there is some misunderstanding here - this was what Pope Benedict himself said/wrote. VATICAN CITY -- As the anniversary of his surprising resignation approaches, Pope Benedict XVI has rejected as “simply absurd” the speculation that he was forced to step down, and he said he still wears the distinctive white papal cassock for “purely practical reasons.” “At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available,” Benedict wrote in a brief letter to an Italian journalist that was published on Wednesday. https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/benedict-rejects-rumors-why-he-resigned-simply-absurd
Thank you for stating this. It is really hard to understand how we can continue to be obedient to this pope when his agenda seems to be to totally destroy our faith and our Church. His one duty is to ensure the faithful transmission of the faith as handed down to him and us over the past nearly 2000 years, but it is obvious that this is not his intention at all. By God's grace, I will never leave the Catholic Church. Far be it from me to encourage others to do so either. I agree. And I also pray for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary - soon, please God.
I don't know how a Church council can judge a Pope to be heretical when only a Pope can convene a council. Even if a Pope could be persuaded to convene such a council, according to Lumen Gentium any decisions made by a council are subject to the approval of the Pope. Catch 22. It's also a bit ridiculous to say that a Pope can be judged by no-one if it is taken to mean that a Pope's actions (or silence when he should speak out) cannot be judged heretical or damaging to the faith. Pope Honorius was anathematised posthumously so clearly he was judged. Dead or alive, he was a Pope and he was judged. It's simply ridiculous that a Pope can be judged to have failed in his duty to defend the faith after he died but can't be judged guilty of the same crime while actually committing it. It's also ridiculous to expect us to believe that any Catholic can assert his conscience over Church teaching on the sanctity of marriage and receive Communion yet every Catholic is expected to pretend that what is plain for the whole world to see isn't really happening because doing so would mean they were judging the Pope and endangering their own souls. This makes little or no sense to me. Are we Catholics expected to believe that baptism washed away our use of reason along with original sin? You don't need the gift of prophecy to see that this shambolic papacy will cause a terrible mess when Pope Francis dies, very likely with more than one person claiming to be the legitimate Pope. Which contender will all those sanctimonious Catholics who believe that Pope Francis is the Holy Spirit's ventriloquist's dummy choose then? The contender supported by the likes of Cardinal Schonborn and Fr. James Martin? And what if Archbishop Heal-me-with-your-Mouth is the St. Gallen Mafia's choice? Will they all be so certain then that the Holy Spirit overrides the free will of the hierarchy on who gets to be Pope?
Well, we didn't have an atheist friend of the pope reporting that the pope believes the earth is flat.
I remember reading someone's writing somewhere that this is why we have the unique situation of having 2 popes now.
Clutching at straws. Pope Benedict has no more authority than any emeritus Bishop. Do you fancy your chances of telling God on judgement day that He had better let you into Heaven if he wants to keep on being God because Pope Francis said that God can't be God without us? Seriously, has any theologian actually clarified what Pope Francis meant by that statement? I mean a serious theologian and not someone who says that without tape recordings we can't be sure what Jesus said.
It is very strange actually. Archbishop Ganswein has talked about the expanded Petrine ministry, with a contemplative member and an active member. Pope Benedict himself said something to the effect of 'once a pope, always a pope' in his resignation speech if I recall correctly. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...in-recalls-dramatic-struggle-of-2005-conclave (Archbishop Gänsewein) therefore stressed that since Francis’ election, there are not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member.” He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.” “Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” Archbishop Gänswein repeated that Benedict’s resignation was “quite different” to that of Pope Celestine V. “So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel, while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”
And also, not really related to what we are discussing now, (but very interesting) Abp Ganswein has also called to mind the prophecy of St Malachy and the list pf popes.
Wishful thinking on the part of Archbishop Ganswein. We can only have one Pope and Pope Benedict says it isn't him, which leaves us with the Pope we deserve.
He added that this is why Benedict XVI “has not given up his name”, unlike Pope Celestine V who reverted to his name Pietro da Marrone, “nor the white cassock.” “Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.” I believe that there is truth in what Abp Ganswein said. Otherwise how does one explain the retention of the name Benedict, instead of reverting to Ratzinger, the white cassock and him remaining within the Vatican grounds?
Maybe he likes the name Benedict. Maybe he thinks he is setting an example for how future Popes should act when they retire. He has to live somewhere and a spot in the Vatican Gardens is as good a place as any.
FAQ: Did Pope Benedict reveal his intent to bifurcate the papacy in the actual Declaratio? https://nonvenipacem.com/2017/07/22...ifurcate-the-papacy-in-the-actual-declaratio/ (excerpts): This is from Benedict’s final general audience of 27 February 2013, the day before his invalid resignation did not become effective, where he exposes his erroneous notion of the indelible nature of the Petrine Ministry. In doing so, he directly contradicts all those previous statements where he claimed he was “renouncing”, “leaving”, and would then be Pontiff “no longer, but a simple pilgrim”. This is the lens through which we must evaluate the Declaratio (comments/emphasis mine): Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005 (Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy). The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him. The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. (<in his mind> the papal coronation indelibly anoints the pontiff in a distinct way, which is different from, and more profound than, the priestly or episcopal ordination/consecration). My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. (the indelibility is <in his mind> irrevocable – Benedict is pope forever, but <in his mind> now exercising only part of the Petrine ministry). I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God. HERE “I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.” I wish I could find video to see if he winked when he said that. In summary, Benedict erroneously believes that acceptance of the papacy itself confers an indelible and irrevocable character on the man who accepts it (similar to the indelible marks of ordination to the priesthood and consecration to the episcopate, except in the case of becoming pope, there is no such thing). Therefore <in his mind> he (Benedict) remains pope even after he “resigns” the governing office and passes the throne to the next “pope”.
It's just so sad and depressing. I wish I knew some magic bullet for all this filth but I don't. I had a friend one time a priest. He was arrested fro this stuff and got five years in jail. Did I not guess what he was up to? Well honestly I had not a single clue. One time someone said something about him which should have aroused my suspicions but I just thought it was a horrible joke in bad taste. Perhaps I am just innocent but it taught me that maybe there are no easy answers to finding these people. Zero tolerance when they are found out of course. But then again people are entitled to be regarded as innocent until proved guilty. Like I say I have no magic bullet. But having homosexual priests, I think was always a bad, bad idea.
Yes I think this is a case quite apart from all others. It merits special treatment. I think Padre Pio's response to ill treatment by the Vatican ( including Popes) and his silence and obedience in the face of outright wrong doing is often cited as an example of how we should respond in the present times. That basically we should put up, shut up and offer it up. But it is I think of horses for courses. At some times all we can do , led by God, is to endure in silence as , for instance the Lamb of God did at the Great Pascal Sacrifice. However there is a time to remain silent and a time to speak out. A time when keeping silent implies moral complicity in guilt. We all have to take thought to ourselves at the present time if by our silence and inaction we might have to answer for this at the Judgement Seat of God. Certainly I suspect many, many Bishops and Cardinals will be asked hard questions about their current cowardly silence. Psalm 50:21 The Mighty One Calls …20"You sit and speak against your brother; You slander your own mother's son. 21"These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes. 22"Now consider this, you who forget God, Or I will tear you in pieces, and there will be none to deliver.… I must say I am lost in admiration for Raymond Arroyo, the Papal Posse and EWTN at the moment and I am not one to hero worship, but I do so admire them. Such courage and honesty. How Mother Angelica must be smiling from heaven. There is a time for silence and a time for speaking out, if ever there was a time for speaking out in the entire history of the Church it is this.
Here is a good example when folks were quiet when they should have been screaming their lungs out. http://catholicherald.co.uk/comment...-fail-to-raise-their-voice-against-the-nazis/
I was thinking lately ; if it came to the point were heresy from Rome was quite openly preached in a local Church would I have the courage to stand up on my hind legs and shout out against it? Or would I just sit there too frightened to say anything? Well I have the most shocking temper when I am roused, I think I would do loads and loads of shouting. I think when the time comes we might be pleasantly surprised how many good people are left out there! Anyway we will see!! Being a good Catholic was never about being , 'Nice', it was all about being loving and if love is not founded on truth it not true love but about being nice.
Apart from instructing us as to what we must do, this saint informs us that the notion of such a pope is not an impossibility, something which many find difficult to accept.
Francis is the acting Pope. Benedict is no more relevant now, I would think, than the popes who are in the Church Triumphant. All he can do, and I am not diminishing its significance or power, is pray.
