Contemporary Canonist Shows that a Publicly Heretical Pope is No Pope at All
Dr. Chojnowski: Here is a Contemporary Canonist who says that same thing with regard to the consequences of papal heresy as Fr. Kramer has been saying and we have emphasized on this blog. Citing St. Robert Bellermine, and Wernz and post-1940s canonists and theologians, Dr. Peters directly contradicts the conclusions of Fr. Chazal and Salza/Siscoe. Here he indicates the gravity of pointing to a man claiming the papacy and shouting "heresy!" If anyone does it, they need to know the implications. Here is sections of Dr. Peter's article below and his credentials. There is no easy Gallican Exit for the true orthodox Catholic.
Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/
Setting aside a few who, relying on half-baked notions like “popes are not bound by canon law”,
throw up their hands in despair at the prospect of a heretical pope and
predict the End-of-the-World-as-We-Know-It, others, more reasonably,
point to Canon 1404, which states “The First See is judged by no one”,
and conclude that the only remedies in the face of a genuinely heretical
pope are prayers and fasting. May I suggest, though, that canon law has
somewhat more to offer than that.
Wrenn, writing in the
CLSA NEW COMM (2001) at 1618 states: “Canon 1404 is not a statement of
personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed,
the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his
office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair.” While I
suggest that Wrenn’s warning be read again, lest its startling impact be
overlooked by the calm manner in which he expressed it, turning to the
crucial question as to who would determine whether a given pope has fallen
into heresy, Wrenn notes that it is not settled by Canon 1404 nor, I
would add, is it settled by any other canon in the Code. But again, one
may turn to canonical tradition for insight.
To be sure, all admit that in talking about popes falling into heresy we are talking a very remote scenario. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome I (1949) n. 340, “This sort of case, given the divine protection of the Church, is considered quite improbable.” Beste, Introductio (1961) 242, “In history no example of this can be found.” And the great Felix Cappello, Summa Iuris I
(1949) n. 309, thought that the possibility of a pope falling into
public heresy should be “entirely dismissed given the special love of
God for the Church of Christ [lest] the Church fall into the greatest
danger.”
But Cappello’s confidence (at least in the scope of
divine protection against heretical popes) was not shared by his
co-religionist, the incomparable Franz Wernz, whose summary of the
various canonical schools of thought about the possibility of a papal
fall from office due to heresy is instructive. After reviewing canonical
norms on loss of papal office due to resignation or insanity,
Wernz-Vidal, IUS CANONICUM II (1928), n. 453, considers the impact of
personal heresy on the part of a pope (emphasis and citations omitted):
Through heresy
notoriously and openly expressed, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into
such, is, by that very fact, and before any declaratory sentence of the
Church, deprived of his power of jurisdiction.
I know of no author
coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis. See, e.g., Ayrinhac,
CONSTITUTION (1930) 33; Sipos, ENCHIRIDION (1954) 156; Regatillo,
INSTITUTIONES I (1961) 299; Palazzini, DMC III (1966) 573; and Wrenn
(2001) above. As for the lack of detailed canonical examination of the mechanics for
assessing possible papal heresy, Cocchi, COMMENTARIUM II/2 (1931) n.
155, ascribes it to the fact that law provides for common cases and
adapts for rarer; may I say again, heretical popes are about as rare as
rare can be and yet still be.
SOURCE
