Putting this here because I doubt there’s a simple factual answer.
What if the Pope just announced ex cathedra one day “You know, we’re going to drop the whole “divinity of Jesus” thing and rebrand ourselves as a feminist, queer-friendly, non-hierarchical secular humanist affinity group”? Or maybe “I order all Catholics to convert to Islam immediately”? Short of Medici methods, would the Church hierarchy have any way of removing the Pope or nullifying his decrees? What, practically, do people think would happen?
The Pope isn’t infallible, and he can preach false doctrine. When he pronounces ex cathedra [from the chair] he is merely giving the final decision on a point of dogma, like the decision of the highest court.
Google claims:
In 882 John VIII became the first papal victim of murder , when some of his staff first poisoned him and then beat him to death with cudgels. Hadrian III (885), Benedict IV (903), and Ser- gius IV (1012) were also probably murdered by their enemies.
So there is a traditional means of handling such a thing. Or is this what you refer to as Medici methods?
I wonder if a Pope can contradict a previous Pope who spoke ex cathedra. Suppose a Pope states a woman cannot receive Holy Orders as an infallible statement, then what if a later Pope states that a woman can be ordained as a deaconess?
Mk_7: (Very appropriate username, BTW!)
Thanks, but can you clarify where the lines are? Like, is the existence of God a point of dogma? If so, couldn’t the Pope declare that the final decision on that one is “nope”? Or is it in a category of “meta-dogma” that can’t be altered, and if so, is that category clearly defined? Who would have the authority to declare a Papal statement made ex cathedra invalid?
Yes, murder is exactly what I meant by “Medici methods”.
As someone mentioned in another thread, it is very limited these days and believed even less.
But why wouldn’t this be a valid method of solving the issue? The church itself was founded on the murder of Jesus for challenging the tradional Jewish beliefs at the time. It’s not really far fetched in terms of historical instances in the Bible.
Well, you don’t need to convince me, but I would be very surprised if some official Church document actually said “In case of emergency, break Pope”. If it did, that would neatly answer the OP. My guess is that in practice it would be more of an ad lib process.
Based on historical precedent, what would happen is that someone else would declare that the Pope in Rome is a false Pope and they are the real Pope. And if the Pope in Rome was far enough away from what most Catholics believe, this Anti-Pope would gather enough momentum to win out, thus becoming the Pope and making the Pope and Anti-Pope.
AIUI that is the account given in the NT. That account does not hold up to scrutiny. If anybody wants to start a new thread to discuss it, I’d be happy to join in. I realize that discussion is outside the scope of this thread, and that FQ would not be the correct forum for it.
I tried to let the post go by without commnet. But, we all know that XKCD strip.
That’s what I figure, too. I was wondering if anyone more knowledgeable about Catholicism might have more specific ideas on exactly how it would work.
Like if the President turns out to be a fascist stooge, there are Constitutional procedures outlining how he could theoretically be removed and how he could be prevented from doing too much crazy stuff in the meantime. Does the Church have anything like that?
Here’s an argument that bishops can depose a pope for committing acts of heresy - which I guess would include things like saying God doesn’t exist. I should note that this argument came from ultraconservative Catholics who didn’t like Pope Francis because reasons, and it gained no traction among the mainstream church.
In the end, I suppose what would happen is that supporters and opponents of the Pope would split, and the schism would either result in two competing bodies (see the Great Schism of 1054) or one body would fade away (e.g., the Bohemian Ultraquist Church.)
https://stream.org/catholic-academics-call-for-pope-francis-to-resign-or-be-removed-citing-unprecedented-crisis/
Funny that anyone would straight-facedly describe the Church’s current situation as being an “unprecedented crisis”, given how many schisms and antipopes there have been over the centuries. But AFAICT these scholars were just saying the bishops needed to depose him because CRISIS!, not arguing that there was some established precedent for them having the authority to do so.
The notion of papal infallibility is something that non-Catholics get their panties twisted about, but Catholics know that it is just one of the many arcane legalistic-with-a-theological-topdressing ideas that have accreted to the body Catholic over the centuries and of no particular interest or consequence. It’s very rarely used, and when it is, it’s to give a seal of approval to something that has already been received dogma for a thousand years. I think the last pronouncement was that Mary was born without sin, or something like that.
People used to think that the Vice President’s ceremonial role in counting the Electoral College votes was of “no particular interest or consequence”, too, and then suddenly cops were being beaten up in the halls of Congress.
I’m posing a not-particularly-realistic hypothetical in which a Pope decides to do stuff that he technically has the right to do, even if the long-established norm is that he doesn’t do that stuff.
Are you suggesting that everyone would just shrug and say “Well, that’s just his opinion, man”? Nobody would see it as a problem that the Pope was rejecting established doctrines ex cathedra, because nobody ever really took that “ex cathedra” stuff seriously anyway?
“Does the Pope shit in the woods?”
I think, as we are seeing in US politics right now, that when an official in a powerful position goes far off the rails, then there is nothing useful that can be reliably predicted. It simply turns into Calvinball. Both for the off-the-rails official, and for the arrayed forces of normalcy within the organization.
What rules as do exist and used to be followed are now shown to be inadequate to the situation. And once rules are being ignored, then the rules about rules are also ignored. Calvinball.
He would become “sick”, be replaced, and anything he said would be attributed to “fever”.
I’m not saying no one takes it seriously. It just isn’t what non-Catholics think it is. The Pope has no army, or secret police, no jails, no torture rooms. The threat of excommunication isn’t what it once was. So it’s not like a deranged, maniacal pope can do the kind of damage that a fascistic head of state can. He has the ability to throw the hierarchy of the church into chaos and even schism but the Church has weathered such before. In fact, on a low level, it’s fairly constant.
If the pope went way sideways, I bet the college of cardinals have the power to remove him and elect someone else. I may be betting wrong …