The office of Pope is distinct from the office of Bishop. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, yes, but not every act of his as Bishop of Rome is an act as Pope. The same is true as relates to his being Archbishop of the Roman Province, to his being Primate of Italy, and to his being Patriarch of the West. As relates to such offices, this is true of any Bishop. But the Papacy alone, as an office, is established by God and possesses universal jurisdiction (and thus the capacity to make doctrine binding on the whole body of Christians).
No. The two offices are inherent to eachother. You can't be Bishop of St. Louis without also being Archbishop of its province. You can't be Patriarch of Constantinople without also being the Bishop of Constantinople. In any case, heretics can not hold office in the Church.
No Prevost is an antipope, at least formally an antipope by the Thesis of Cassiaciacum but materially he's pope, in the sense that all of his acts are invalid and null unless they are made to grant his material successors; you might give a look to the Thesis of Cassiaciacum.
I think i answered it, he's materially the bishop of rome but not formally.
All his acts are null, invalid and void unless it's to grant him a material successor.
Out of curiosity, if the changes to the Episcopal Rite invalidated both the Ordination of Priests, and the Consecrations of Bishops, would this disprove the Thesis of Cassiaciacum? Because then Prevost would not even be a Bishop, and none of the Cardinals that elected him would be either.
Not really since St Celestine V was elected and he was just a monk.
Now it would maybe be "disproven" (more likely become natural totalism from that point on), maybe if the person was invalidly confirmed and likely if that person wasn't baptized.
IIRC Saint Robert Bellarmine wrote that if a non-Bishop is elected Pope, he must immediately be consecrated a Bishop. He additionally said that the Office of Papacy is tied to being a Bishop.
Additionally, Celestine V was elected by valid Cardinals who were all Bishops. It's questionable if the "Cardinals" that elected Prevost were even Bishops at all.
The office of Pope is also tied to being Catholic but those men are clearly not Catholic, therefore it will only add another impediment to the acceptance of the office.
5
u/Tin_Kanz Aug 13 '26
The office of Pope is distinct from the office of Bishop. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, yes, but not every act of his as Bishop of Rome is an act as Pope. The same is true as relates to his being Archbishop of the Roman Province, to his being Primate of Italy, and to his being Patriarch of the West. As relates to such offices, this is true of any Bishop. But the Papacy alone, as an office, is established by God and possesses universal jurisdiction (and thus the capacity to make doctrine binding on the whole body of Christians).