Skip to main content

Michael O'Hearn: "The early ecclesiology seems to have held that once elected, a pontiff cannot resign or be deposed except in cases of apostasy"

Michael O'Hearn said…
Hope this is the right URL:

https://silo.tips/download/the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi-between-history-law-and-conscience

Please reflect on the title. What interests me from a legal perspective is how the doctrine of papal resignation develops over time. The early ecclesiology seems to have held that once elected, a pontiff cannot resign or be deposed except in cases of apostasy, but few and far between. This helps to gain proper understanding of what Pope Benedict may have meant by the “munus” as a forever character and gift received at acceptance of the responsibilities of office. 
In this sense which I believe Benedict had in mind, and perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, all of the subsequent papal resignations did not entail giving up this gift simply because the gift is irrevocable. Benedict took it a step further by stating explicitly the not so obvious fact that he still retains this “munus” (gift) even after his resignation of the ministerium, and so chooses not by necessity to exemplify some of the “nonessential” outward signs of his former ministry. 
To argue that his words were somehow inadequate would in effect be saying that all papal resignations prior to that point were invalid, because in every case the resigning or deposed individual still endowed with the same irrevocable “munus” (gift), i.e. Benedict knew that he could never voluntarily give this up even if he wanted to, which of course he didn’t. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/12/flashback-might-edward-feser-be-using.html?showComment=1671582462824#c6432340367412390298]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more