People explaining (sometimes-) complicated Scripture/Church teaching should be more like Fox News

[discombobulated1]

Fox News is very good at putting complex political and current events-issues in plain language that anyone can understand. Even 10 year olds can understand most news stories on Fox (but not necessarily am I recommending a 10 year old watch many of those stories... I mean there are seriously "icky" things going on today )

And even though they do that, I still cannot always fully understand certain sentences said, so it is good they REPLAY certain really great shows like Maria Bartiromo and her (nearly always) awesome, INFORMED guests.

I tried --am still trying--to read through some information about how the Church deals with (doesn't deal with) a notoriously heretical pope, and I still do not fully understand. There appears to be contradictory statements in the material, yet the authors criticize Mario Derksen, a Sedevacantist for being inconsistent in his logic!

(Admittedly, the topic is far from being as easy to understand as it may seem... much less: should be. )

 

[jas3]

I tried --am still trying--to read through some information about how the Church deals with (doesn't deal with) a notoriously heretical pope, and I still do not fully understand. There appears to be contradictory statements in the material, yet the authors criticize Mario Derksen, a Sedevacantist for being inconsistent in his logic!

To get at what seems to be the core part of the OP: the literature is contradictory because the situation has only ever been theoretical, as far as non-sedevacantist Catholics are concerned. The one possible exception would be Pope Honorius, but there are reasonable arguments against his having been condemned as a heretic in his person.

From the little reading I've done on the subject, a notoriously heretical pope could, according to various writers:

• be an impossibility
• immediately lose his status as a legitimate pope upon coming to hold a heretical belief
• still be a legitimate pope, but able to be deposed by the college of bishops if he attempts to teach heresy

The first of these seems to be the de facto position of Catholicism at large today. Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict have all been criticized by traditionalists for promoting religious liberty, the New Mass, ecumenism, "charismatic Catholicism," and more, but Pope Francis has outright contradicted existing Catholic doctrine in his teaching on matters of faith and morals and at most has had several open letters published exhorting him to change his mind. Some of those have cautiously advocated for the third position, but nobody seems to know how that would actually play out, not even the bishops themselves.

The second is the position of some sedevacantists, such as the Dimond brothers. This is the least convincing option to me because it effectively makes every individual a judge of the highest position in the Catholic earthly hierarchy, which has the result of inverting the hierarchy. It is a very vague criterion for "removing" a pope, much like the belief held by some Orthodox Old Calendarists that any clergy who participate in ecumenism, or hold communion with those who do, lose the grace in their sacraments (what Fr. John Whiteford appropriately calls the "cooties" view).

 

[bbbbbbb]

To get at what seems to be the core part of the OP: the literature is contradictory because the situation has only ever been theoretical, as far as non-sedevacantist Catholics are concerned. The one possible exception would be Pope Honorius, but there are reasonable arguments against his having been condemned as a heretic in his person.

From the little reading I've done on the subject, a notoriously heretical pope could, according to various writers:

• be an impossibility
• immediately lose his status as a legitimate pope upon coming to hold a heretical belief
• still be a legitimate pope, but able to be deposed by the college of bishops if he attempts to teach heresy

The first of these seems to be the de facto position of Catholicism at large today. Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict have all been criticized by traditionalists for promoting religious liberty, the New Mass, ecumenism, "charismatic Catholicism," and more, but Pope Francis has outright contradicted existing Catholic doctrine in his teaching on matters of faith and morals and at most has had several open letters published exhorting him to change his mind. Some of those have cautiously advocated for the third position, but nobody seems to know how that would actually play out, not even the bishops themselves.

The second is the position of some sedevacantists, such as the Dimond brothers. This is the least convincing option to me because it effectively makes every individual a judge of the highest position in the Catholic earthly hierarchy, which has the result of inverting the hierarchy. It is a very vague criterion for "removing" a pope, much like the belief held by some Orthodox Old Calendarists that any clergy who participate in ecumenism, or hold communion with those who do, lose the grace in their sacraments (what Fr. John Whiteford appropriately calls the "cooties" view).

We can look at history to find a solution to this apparent conundrum. From 1309 to 1376 there were two sets of Popes - one in Rome and the other in Avignon, France. As they say, to the victor belongs the right to construct the history. I will not pass judgement as to which of these sets was legitimate and which was heretical. I think we can agree, however, that, at most, one set may have been legitimate and it is possible that neither was.

 

[jas3]

We can look at history to find a solution to this apparent conundrum. From 1309 to 1376 there were two sets of Popes - one in Rome and the other in Avignon, France. As they say, to the victor belongs the right to construct the history. I will not pass judgement as to which of these sets was legitimate and which was heretical. I think we can agree, however, that, at most, one set may have been legitimate and it is possible that neither was.

The Great Western Schism isn't directly applicable to today's situation though, because the key issue was one of canonical procedure, not faith and morals. And that's not just the "winners writing history," since both lines of papal claimants ultimately agreed to let a council resolve the dispute; one didn't dominate or conquer the other.

It would be applicable in cases where there are rival lines of papal claimants like the Palmarians, where if both Francis and Peter III agreed to have a council determine who the true pope was, the Council of Constance would be the blueprint for proceeding. But Peter is not a serious challenger to Francis' acceptance by Catholics, and there has never been a case where an effectively unopposed pope has been deposed on the basis of teaching heresy and subsequently replaced by a newly-elected pope.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Great Western Schism isn't directly applicable to today's situation though, because the key issue was one of canonical procedure, not faith and morals. And that's not just the "winners writing history," since both lines of papal claimants ultimately agreed to let a council resolve the dispute; one didn't dominate or conquer the other.

It would be applicable in cases where there are rival lines of papal claimants like the Palmarians, where if both Francis and Peter III agreed to have a council determine who the true pope was, the Council of Constance would be the blueprint for proceeding. But Peter is not a serious challenger to Francis' acceptance by Catholics, and there has never been a case where an effectively unopposed pope has been deposed on the basis of teaching heresy and subsequently replaced by a newly-elected pope.

Thank you for the clarification. It is much appreciated.