The deposing of a Pope is……from all that I can gather……still an open question. For some, Vatican 1 makes it very difficult for a deposition to occur or at the very least definitely limits it and doesn’t particularly seem to be going in the direction of making depositions very easy when statements like this in V1 need to be considered:

"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm

Am I correct in noting that this is still an open question?

Also, this is a slight deviation from my original understanding about the Papacy (which I will not go into detail here) in that I saw the Church operating different than say Eastern Orthodox or Anglicans in so much as how it materializes into resolving doctrinal issues in particular.

If a Pope can be deposed for formal heresy, this would in turn mean he can also be wrongly deposed by unorthodox bishops as well. This can get tricky real quick and it brings to question a number of things. I'll leave it at this for now.

I also wanted to note that as many of you know, that we've had heretical Popes before. Formal Herectic? I do not know and can't recall. But say they were, what does that mean but they are wrong about the faith. I always understood it that as long as he didn't teach it to the whole of the Church in a formal manner.

It's possible that Benedict IX was deposed. More than that, I really couldn't say

It looks inconclusive. Some accounts indicate he resigned and died in penitence.

One could posit that JP1 was deposed the old fashioned way.

It's not an "open question" it is a known fact the deposition big a Pope is Impossible. No one had authority over a Pope, in the immortal words of Pope Innocent III the Pope is "lower than God but higher than man, judges all and us himself judged by no one"

you said a mouthful there tango

Even if teaching formal heresy and deviating from the faith?

ain't no open question about THAT.

Hey Tango,

You're SSPX, do have a different understanding of this?

He was Pope 3 times, remember

That's right. I forgot about that.

It seems likely to me popes can lose office. But there are different opinions as to how this is judged.

It seems indubitable that Benedict IX was deposed (twice)... No actual evidence that he resigned... After all it took military occupation of Rome. Of course whoever held the Lateran was generally judged at the time as holding the reins

"On the saint's advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

actually, i've never read any commentary by the SSPX on the subject, so i don't know what their position might be.

for that matter, i don't know that they've ever made comment on it.

Leaving aside he was deposed several times I am well aware of the narrative given in the over hundred years old, varying greatly in quality, Catholic Encyclopedia.

But there is no reliable evidence. Furthermore, even if the abbott's claim that he repented before he died is true, that has nothing to do with his deposition. He did not attend or accept the Council of Sutri. In fact, he seized the Lateran by force and had to be driven away by German troops.

This third reign is reckoned as legitimate, and so his the reign of Damasus II. There is no doubt that he was removed by force and refused to accept it at the time. Even the next year, he refused to recognize Damasus II and was excommunicated.

If he accepted his loss of office between then and his death 7 years ago, he still had lost his office twice against his will!

That's a good point.

I’m not entirely clear how this will materialize given that forcibly deposing a Pope can theoretically make things worse (say we had the Bishops who were wrong). Just seems like a bad idea. It’s one thing to elect a Pope, quite another to judge him.

Wasn't it the emperor who deposed him? What would be the procedure to repeat something like that?