The Catholic Message Board

... but if it was necessary, he says in a new book, how he would navigate that process. (Very short article)

https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/pope-i ... resigning/

His mental faculties seem ship shape despite his physical frailty. I can't imagine being in a position knowing that some people wish you dead but he has a good attitude to that very situation.

I definitely don't wish him dead - he should not be allowed to die in office

Really? Catholics who aren't fans of Francis want him dead? Seriously, what a childish assertion.

This is definitely not Pub material.

And I agree with Doom.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:23 pm I definitely don't wish him dead - he should not be allowed to die in office

Actually, yes, I think he should remain until death. We don't want to belittle the Papal office by making Papal resignation a normal thing so that any future Popes will be expected to resign once they reach a certain age or number of years in office. The Pope is not a prime minister or other secular offices that should be expected to "step down" once he loses his "Mandate". If this keeps up, the only lifetime position left in the west will be US Senator. I bet you thought I was going to say "Supreme Court Justice" but no, Supreme Court justices almost always retire, but Senators are increasingly serving for life, getting elected at age 30 and re-elected every 6 years until they die in office in their late 80's, is increasingly common with names such as Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, and others being elected to 8 or more terms.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:23 pm I definitely don't wish him dead - he should not be allowed to die in office

Dying in office is the SOP for a Pope.

Under normal circumstances a Pope should remain in office until death, yes. In other circumstances, like when he recognizes he's unfit for the office (e.g. St. Celestine V), he should resign. In still other circumstances, he should be deposed.

zeno wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 5:07 pm This is definitely not Pub material.

And I agree with Doom.

Banned for agreeing with Doom.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 5:59 pm Under normal circumstances a Pope should remain in office until death, yes. In other circumstances, like when he recognizes he's unfit for the office (e.g. St. Celestine V), he should resign. In still other circumstances, he should be deposed.

You are smarter than this, Popes cannot be validly deposed, you know this. The rule is "Lower than God but higher than man, the Pope judges all and is himself judged by no one". Not in a literal sense of course, but in the sense that no one has jurisdiction over him. No one can depose him, no one can impeach him, and when he resigns, he does not have to submit his resignation to anyone because he has no superior to hand it to.

If two Popes in a row resign, every Pope from that moment forward will be pressured to resign, and the Papacy will become a meaningless office, with all future occupants a few years into their term harassed until they resign. Imagine a future Pope visiting a country only to be greeted by crowds shouting "resign, resign, resign" because he had served his full 5-year or 10-year term and that is what all Popes are expected to do at that point in their pontificate. The papal office will then become as useless as the Archbishop of Canterbury in Anglicanism

If something happens once, it's a fluke. If it happens twice in a row then it becomes a precedent that establishes the new normal and the new expectation for all future Popes. This is exactly what happened when John Paul I refused to be coronated with the Papal tiara, then 6 weeks later John Paul II did the same, and now a traditional coronation is no longer even in Canon Law and it is unlikely any future Pope will attempt to reinstate it. The end of the Papacy as a lifetime office will be far more damaging by comparison.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 8:45 pm

zeno wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 5:07 pm This is definitely not Pub material.

And I agree with Doom.

Banned for agreeing with Doom.

You can't ban me. I am a founder.

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:23 pm You are smarter than this, Popes cannot be validly deposed, you know this.

That would be news to Benedict IX!

The rule is "Lower than God but higher than man, the Pope judges all and is himself judged by no one".

Where can one find this rule prior to the 20th century? The Decretum Gratiani phrases it a bit differently.

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 5:04 pm Really? Catholics who aren't fans of Francis want him dead? Seriously, what a childish assertion.

See Fr. Altman...

peregrinator wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 7:39 am

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:23 pm You are smarter than this, Popes cannot be validly deposed, you know this.

That would be news to Benedict IX!

The rule is "Lower than God but higher than man, the Pope judges all and is himself judged by no one".

Where can one find this rule prior to the 20th century? The Decretum Gratiani phrases it a bit differently.

It was first said by Pope Innocent III and has been reiterated in different forms

Can you quote Innocent III for me with his precise wording? Thanks.

Here's another quote attributed to Innocent III: "Only on account of sin committed against the faith can I be judged by the Church."

Doom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 5:04 pm Really? Catholics who aren't fans of Francis want him dead? Seriously, what a childish assertion.

Certainly not all non-fans want him dead, but there are some.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:02 pm Can you quote Innocent III for me with his precise wording? Thanks.

Here's another quote attributed to Innocent III: "Only on account of sin committed against the faith can I be judged by the Church."

Again, the quote I provided, which is the most famous quote of Innocent III and is included in almost every textbook on Medieval history or Western civilization which mentions him, does not refer to moral judgement, it refers to jurisdiction, it was his way of saying that no one has jurisdiction over a Pope, no one can dismiss him from his post, no one can depose him, no one can impeach him or force him to resign. That is not true of local bishops or priests or deacons, and in understanding of the time, also to the secular authorities, kings and emperors, all of whom can be dismissed on a whim by the Pope. The Pope no longer claims the authority to depose kings. but in the context of the 13th century this is what he meant.

The same is true of the other, even more controversial statement by a Pope, Unum Sanctum by Boniface VIII. In context, Boniface was claiming with that document that he had the right to depose Philip the Fair, and that Philip is subject to Papal authority, but he (Boniface) was not subject to the authority of Philip. This claim ultimately proved hollow of course with the events that followed.

Doom wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:40 am

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:02 pm Can you quote Innocent III for me with his precise wording? Thanks.

Here's another quote attributed to Innocent III: "Only on account of sin committed against the faith can I be judged by the Church."

Again, the quote I provided, which is the most famous quote of Innocent III and is included in almost every textbook on Medieval history or Western civilization which mentions him

OK, so you shouldn't have any difficulty with citing where and how he said that then, since it's quoted so often.

does not refer to moral judgement

- neither does the quote I gave: why would one speak of moral judgment by the Church solely for the sin against the faith? We can make moral judgment of the Pope's acts even where sins against the faith aren't involved, and we don't need the Church for that -

it refers to jurisdiction, it was his way of saying that no one has jurisdiction over a Pope, no one can dismiss him from his post, no one can depose him, no one can impeach him or force him to resign.

Which has nevertheless happened in the past, so perhaps the quote isn't genuine or the interpretation you've given it isn't correct.

Emphases mine below:

Innocent III in 'In Consecratione Pontificis Maximi' wrote:Et ideo fides apostolicae sedis in nulla nunquam turbatione defecit, sed integra semper et illibata permansit: ut Petri privilegium persisteret inconcussum. In tantum enim fides mihi necessaria est, ut cum de caeteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, jam judicatus est.