OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 09:29:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anathematizing a Pope  (Read 2910 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« on: September 17, 2010, 10:07:36 PM »

Here is a quote from the Third Council of Constantinople.

Quote
"And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." -Sixth Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople), Session XIII - The Sentence Against the Monothelites

My questions are,
  • What would happen today if the Pope was determined to be a heretic?
  • Who would determine such a fact and who would excommunicate him?
  • Is that even possible?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2010, 10:21:17 PM »

    Here is a quote from the Third Council of Constantinople.

    Quote
    "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." -Sixth Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople), Session XIII - The Sentence Against the Monothelites

    My questions are,
    • What would happen today if the Pope was determined to be a heretic?
    what do you mean "if?"
    Quote
    • Who would determine such a fact and who would excommunicate him?
    the Church, which has.
    Quote
    list]
    • Is that even possible?
    Of course. It's been done.

    Now, if you ask the Vatican, the answers would be
    Can't be done.
    No one can determine that fact and excommunicate him.
    No.[/list]
    « Last Edit: September 17, 2010, 10:23:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    militantsparrow
    Laurence
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
    Posts: 616


    militantsparrow
    « Reply #2 on: September 17, 2010, 10:36:41 PM »

    ialmisry,
    Thanks for the response. I'm curious to hear from my fellow RC's.

    But can I ask you the same questions in regards to an EO Patriarch.
    Logged

    "Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
    Papist
    Patriarch of Pontification
    Toumarches
    ************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine
    Posts: 12,143


    Truth, Justice, and the American way!


    « Reply #3 on: September 17, 2010, 11:51:15 PM »

    I believe that term "heretic" was used more broadly in the early Church. First of all, some one might be a heretic not just for professing false beliefs but for allowing such beliefs to spread. Such was the case of Honorius. He never actaully taught anything heretical. At worst, he wrote ambiguos documents that could be read either way. Perhaps he did this to attempt to perserve the unity of the Church. Perhaps it was a false sense of ecumenism. Whatever his reasons, his writings are not heretical, just ambiguos. Such would be the mark of a bad pastor, but not a fromal heretic in the sense in which we understand it. I believe that he was comdemned becasue he simply did not defend the faith as he should have.
    That being said, we have kind of had this discussion on another thread. People have kept asking, "Would the Pope be infallible if he became Eastern Orthodox". The answer is, of course not, because he if changed religions he would not be a Catholic, and could not actually be the Pope. The same would be true of a "heretical Pope". If a pope were to reject a matter of the Trinity or the Incarntion, as our EO brethren will accuse the Pope Honorius, then he would no longer be a Catholic, and would not actually be the Pope. But remember, this is hypothetical because I do NOT believe that Honorius was a formal heretic in the modern sense of the word. In fact, I do NOT believe that any Pope of Rome has ever been a heretic while in office as Pope.
    « Last Edit: September 17, 2010, 11:53:29 PM by Papist » Logged

    Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
    JLatimer
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: ROCOR
    Posts: 1,202



    « Reply #4 on: September 18, 2010, 12:03:51 AM »

    I believe that term "heretic" was used more broadly in the early Church. First of all, some one might be a heretic not just for professing false beliefs but for allowing such beliefs to spread. Such was the case of Honorius. He never actaully taught anything heretical. At worst, he wrote ambiguos documents that could be read either way. Perhaps he did this to attempt to perserve the unity of the Church. Perhaps it was a false sense of ecumenism. Whatever his reasons, his writings are not heretical, just ambiguos. Such would be the mark of a bad pastor, but not a fromal heretic in the sense in which we understand it. I believe that he was comdemned becasue he simply did not defend the faith as he should have.
    That being said, we have kind of had this discussion on another thread. People have kept asking, "Would the Pope be infallible if he became Eastern Orthodox". The answer is, of course not, because he if changed religions he would not be a Catholic, and could not actually be the Pope. The same would be true of a "heretical Pope". If a pope were to reject a matter of the Trinity or the Incarntion, as our EO brethren will accuse the Pope Honorius, then he would no longer be a Catholic, and would not actually be the Pope. But remember, this is hypothetical because I do NOT believe that Honorius was a formal heretic in the modern sense of the word. In fact, I do NOT believe that any Pope of Rome has ever been a heretic while in office as Pope.

    Of course you don't. But believing (or wishing) something to be true don't make it so.
    « Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 12:05:57 AM by JLatimer » Logged

    1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
    So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
    militantsparrow
    Laurence
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
    Posts: 616


    militantsparrow
    « Reply #5 on: September 18, 2010, 12:08:16 AM »

    Papist,
    Wasn't Pope Honorius anathematized regardless? Hypothetically speaking, if Pope Benedict did become a heretic, who would claim as much and who would remove him from office? Would a council have to be called? Who would call it? Would the Cardinals just choose a new Pope?
    Logged

    "Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
    bogdan
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Posts: 1,615



    « Reply #6 on: September 18, 2010, 12:19:13 AM »

    This question has interested me in the past, especially when I was having my flirtations with Catholicism before I found Orthodoxy.

    It makes sense to me that Catholics say the Pope would cease to be Pope if he were to become a heretic. It would be abdication of his church's teachings, and render him invalid. Whatever charism or special grace the Pope is considered to have would depart him because he abandoned his stated faith.

    But who has the authority to do anything about it? If a Pope has fallen into heresy, he isn't going to suddenly find some goodwill and hand the reins off to someone who isn't a heretic. He would continue to execute his office, teaching heresy, and so forth. Since nobody can judge if he is a heretic, what is the recourse? How would the Catholic faithful know the heretical Pope was teaching heresy if no one has jurisdiction to judge him? The standard for formal heresy (as I understand it: a true belief in one's heart that conflicts with the RCC's teaching) is so high that only God can truly know if a Pope is a formal heretic. But that does nothing to help the people, unless God strikes him dead or something.

    I mean nothing polemical, I would genuinely like to understand, because I am familiar with some sedevacantists and their arguments center on these points. Those who fight against sedevacantism, in my experience, basically say that God would reward the people's obedience to the church, even though they are obeying corrupted teachings. To me that's hardly an acceptable recourse.

    To address militantsparrow, a general council would have the authority to anathematize a heretic patriarch. But before that could happen, he would probably be ousted by his synod, or if that didn't work, the other patriarchs could break communion with his church, which would in effect excommunicate him.
    « Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 12:33:48 AM by bogdan » Logged
    JLatimer
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: ROCOR
    Posts: 1,202



    « Reply #7 on: September 18, 2010, 12:20:28 AM »

    Does the Pope have free will?
    Logged

    1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
    So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
    synLeszka
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 532


    « Reply #8 on: September 18, 2010, 03:14:47 AM »

     I think that the traditional method of deposing a heretic is to murder him. Only fanatics and psychological unstable people scream "heretic, heretic to the stake with him" with incessent glee.
    This forum seems to be inhabited by many incarnations of Susanna Maiolo.
    « Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 03:19:42 AM by synLeszka » Logged
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #9 on: September 18, 2010, 04:24:27 AM »

    ialmisry,
    Thanks for the response. I'm curious to hear from my fellow RC's.

    But can I ask you the same questions in regards to an EO Patriarch.
    If the Patriarch is Orthodox, there is no reason to depose him for heresy.

    If a bishop sitting on a patriarchal throne begins to teach heresy, a synod is held to judge him where he can exonerate himself. If he doesn't, the synod deposes him.  The other autocephalous Churches then singal their agreement by stricking him from the diptychs, and inserting his successors names in it. If they all do not, he is either restored, a schism ensues, or the synod's decision is voided.  The last time I can think this came up was in 1871 with the Bulgarian primate, before that the Melkite schism in 1724.

    So your answers for a patriarch would be:
    He would be deposed.
    A synod.
    Yes.
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #10 on: September 18, 2010, 04:25:57 AM »

    I think that the traditional method of deposing a heretic is to murder him. Only fanatics and psychological unstable people scream "heretic, heretic to the stake with him" with incessent glee.
    This forum seems to be inhabited by many incarnations of Susanna Maiolo.

    projection?
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    militantsparrow
    Laurence
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
    Posts: 616


    militantsparrow
    « Reply #11 on: September 18, 2010, 08:37:28 AM »

    These are all excellent answers to the EO scenario. Thank you. The EO's method for handling heresy seems logical and practical. I still don't understand the RC method.

    Here's my dilemma. If unity with the Pope is necessary for Catholicism then doesn't that mean that the councils, which anathematized the bishop of Rome, were themselves schismatics? Weren't they much like the RC views the EO and sedavancantists now?

    Unity with the Apostolic See seems ideal, but how can it be necessary for true orthodoxy?
    Logged

    "Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
    Wyatt
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Posts: 2,395


    « Reply #12 on: September 18, 2010, 10:32:52 AM »

    Unity with the Apostolic See seems ideal, but how can it be necessary for true orthodoxy?

    What it comes down to is whether you believe historically that everyone was in full communion with Rome because of its orthodoxy, or whether everyone was orthodox because of their being in full communion with Rome. EO believe the former and RCs believe the latter. I'm sure you have already heard the arguments for and against the Catholic Church's Petrine teachings, so now what you have to decide is who you think is right. As for me, I sided and still side with Rome.
    Logged
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #13 on: September 18, 2010, 11:47:14 AM »

    Unity with the Apostolic See seems ideal, but how can it be necessary for true orthodoxy?

    What it comes down to is whether you believe historically that everyone was in full communion with Rome because of its orthodoxy, or whether everyone was orthodox because of their being in full communion with Rome. EO believe the former and RCs believe the latter. I'm sure you have already heard the arguments for and against the Catholic Church's Petrine teachings, so now what you have to decide is who you think is right. As for me, I sided and still side with Rome.

    Well, everypatriarch except for St. Sophronios of Jerusalem (and perhaps the Archbishop of Cyprus) sided with Honorios of Rome. Who is Orthodox?
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    militantsparrow
    Laurence
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
    Posts: 616


    militantsparrow
    « Reply #14 on: September 18, 2010, 12:01:48 PM »

    Wyatt,
    Maybe I'm over or under thinking this, but if the latter is true then how could Honorius be anathematized?
    Logged

    "Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #15 on: September 18, 2010, 04:20:37 PM »


    Wasn't Pope Honorius anathematized regardless?
    Yes.
    Here is an article which gives a Roman Catholic point of view on the incident involving Honorius I.
     http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&CFID=50970295&CFTOKEN=27205757
    Logged
    militantsparrow
    Laurence
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
    Posts: 616


    militantsparrow
    « Reply #16 on: September 18, 2010, 04:51:00 PM »


    Wasn't Pope Honorius anathematized regardless?
    Yes.
    Here is an article which gives a Roman Catholic point of view on the incident involving Honorius I.
     http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&CFID=50970295&CFTOKEN=27205757

    Good article. So the belief is that Pope Honorius was not a heretic but was anathematized for not doing enough to stop a heresy. That is good to know, but now the concept is even stranger.

    If unity with the Pope is a requirement to Catholicism then how could a council anathematize him for failing to teach?
    Logged

    "Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #17 on: September 18, 2010, 05:13:43 PM »


    Wasn't Pope Honorius anathematized regardless?
    Yes.
    Here is an article which gives a Roman Catholic point of view on the incident involving Honorius I.
     http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3301&CFID=50970295&CFTOKEN=27205757

    Good article. So the belief is that Pope Honorius was not a heretic but was anathematized for not doing enough to stop a heresy. That is good to know, but now the concept is even stranger.

    If unity with the Pope is a requirement to Catholicism then how could a council anathematize him for failing to teach?
    I hope to pursue this on the new thread "Honorius and Pastor Aeternus"
    http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29951.msg473258/topicseen.html#msg473258
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    Papist
    Patriarch of Pontification
    Toumarches
    ************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine
    Posts: 12,143


    Truth, Justice, and the American way!


    « Reply #18 on: September 18, 2010, 10:55:40 PM »

    Papist,
    Wasn't Pope Honorius anathematized regardless? Hypothetically speaking, if Pope Benedict did become a heretic, who would claim as much and who would remove him from office? Would a council have to be called? Who would call it? Would the Cardinals just choose a new Pope?
    I honestly don't know. Since no Pope has actually ever been a heretic, then I don't know what the proper actions would be. It seems to me that the Cardinals would just have to elect a new one. Then you would have a real Pope, and if the heretic chose not to step down, there would also be an antipope.
    Logged

    Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
    Papist
    Patriarch of Pontification
    Toumarches
    ************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine
    Posts: 12,143


    Truth, Justice, and the American way!


    « Reply #19 on: September 18, 2010, 10:56:26 PM »

    I believe that term "heretic" was used more broadly in the early Church. First of all, some one might be a heretic not just for professing false beliefs but for allowing such beliefs to spread. Such was the case of Honorius. He never actaully taught anything heretical. At worst, he wrote ambiguos documents that could be read either way. Perhaps he did this to attempt to perserve the unity of the Church. Perhaps it was a false sense of ecumenism. Whatever his reasons, his writings are not heretical, just ambiguos. Such would be the mark of a bad pastor, but not a fromal heretic in the sense in which we understand it. I believe that he was comdemned becasue he simply did not defend the faith as he should have.
    That being said, we have kind of had this discussion on another thread. People have kept asking, "Would the Pope be infallible if he became Eastern Orthodox". The answer is, of course not, because he if changed religions he would not be a Catholic, and could not actually be the Pope. The same would be true of a "heretical Pope". If a pope were to reject a matter of the Trinity or the Incarntion, as our EO brethren will accuse the Pope Honorius, then he would no longer be a Catholic, and would not actually be the Pope. But remember, this is hypothetical because I do NOT believe that Honorius was a formal heretic in the modern sense of the word. In fact, I do NOT believe that any Pope of Rome has ever been a heretic while in office as Pope.

    Of course you don't. But believing (or wishing) something to be true don't make it so.
    I know that you guys dislike the Catholic faith so much that you hope and pray that the Pope would be a heretic but this doesn't make it so either.
    Logged

    Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
    Papist
    Patriarch of Pontification
    Toumarches
    ************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine
    Posts: 12,143


    Truth, Justice, and the American way!


    « Reply #20 on: September 18, 2010, 10:58:22 PM »

    If unity with the Pope is a requirement to Catholicism then how could a council anathematize him for failing to teach?
    Well, the short answer is that a coucnil cannot anathematize him. The council was in error to do so. Councils are not infallible in their pastoral actions such as the anathemas of particular persons. They are only infallible in the doctrines that they teach.
    Logged

    Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #21 on: September 18, 2010, 11:44:05 PM »

    If unity with the Pope is a requirement to Catholicism then how could a council anathematize him for failing to teach?
    Well, the short answer is that a coucnil cannot anathematize him. The council was in error to do so. Councils are not infallible in their pastoral actions such as the anathemas of particular persons. They are only infallible in the doctrines that they teach.
    I am not sure that this is the complete story on Pope Honorius I. For example, according to the following three ecumenical councils anathematised him.
    See: The Roman Catholic Church Condemned Pope Honorius I as a Heretic and Excommunicated Him
    http://www.romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.htm
    On the other hand, there is a lot of counterargument out there saying that the declarations of Honorius were not ex cathedra and were only personal opinions.
    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
    Logged
    deusveritasest
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: None
    Jurisdiction: None
    Posts: 7,528



    WWW
    « Reply #22 on: September 19, 2010, 12:58:23 AM »

    I believe that term "heretic" was used more broadly in the early Church. First of all, some one might be a heretic not just for professing false beliefs but for allowing such beliefs to spread. Such was the case of Honorius. He never actaully taught anything heretical. At worst, he wrote ambiguos documents that could be read either way. Perhaps he did this to attempt to perserve the unity of the Church. Perhaps it was a false sense of ecumenism. Whatever his reasons, his writings are not heretical, just ambiguos. Such would be the mark of a bad pastor, but not a fromal heretic in the sense in which we understand it. I believe that he was comdemned becasue he simply did not defend the faith as he should have.
    That being said, we have kind of had this discussion on another thread. People have kept asking, "Would the Pope be infallible if he became Eastern Orthodox". The answer is, of course not, because he if changed religions he would not be a Catholic, and could not actually be the Pope. The same would be true of a "heretical Pope". If a pope were to reject a matter of the Trinity or the Incarntion, as our EO brethren will accuse the Pope Honorius, then he would no longer be a Catholic, and would not actually be the Pope. But remember, this is hypothetical because I do NOT believe that Honorius was a formal heretic in the modern sense of the word. In fact, I do NOT believe that any Pope of Rome has ever been a heretic while in office as Pope.

    Of course you don't. But believing (or wishing) something to be true don't make it so.
    I know that you guys dislike the Catholic faith so much that you hope and pray that the Pope would be a heretic but this doesn't make it so either.

    I certainly don't pray for the Pope to be a heretic.
    Logged

    I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #23 on: September 19, 2010, 01:57:18 AM »

    Papist,
    Wasn't Pope Honorius anathematized regardless? Hypothetically speaking, if Pope Benedict did become a heretic, who would claim as much and who would remove him from office? Would a council have to be called? Who would call it? Would the Cardinals just choose a new Pope?
    I honestly don't know. Since no Pope has actually ever been a heretic,
    The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils said otherwise.
    then I don't know what the proper actions would be. It seems to me that the Cardinals would just have to elect a new one.

    And how would they go about doing that? It does not seem your canons provide a mechanism.

    Can. 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

    Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

    §2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

    §3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

    Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

    Can. 335 When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.

    Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.

    Can. 337 §1. The college of bishops exercises power offer the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.

    §2. It exercises the same power through the united action of the bishops dispersed in the world, which the Roman Pontiff has publicly declared or freely accepted as such so that it becomes a true collegial act.

    §3. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church.

    Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

    §2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

    Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

    Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.

    §2. To have obligatory force, decrees which the college of bishops issues when it places a truly collegial action in another way initiated or freely accepted by the Roman Pontiff need the same confirmation and promulgation.

    In other words, you need a heretic pope to sign his own death warrant.  Barring that, there is no power to remove him, and all must obey him.

    Then you would have a real Pope,
    According to your canon law, no, you would not.

    Can. 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

    Being deposed-if the college of cardinals found some way to do that-would preclude a "resignation made freely." But since they can never act "without their head," it is hard to see it even getting to that point.

    and if the heretic chose not to step down, there would also be an antipope.
    who would be the one whom the bishops/cardinals "uncanonically" (according to the Vatican's canons, not the Pedalion's) elected.
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #24 on: September 19, 2010, 01:57:18 AM »

    I believe that term "heretic" was used more broadly in the early Church. First of all, some one might be a heretic not just for professing false beliefs but for allowing such beliefs to spread. Such was the case of Honorius. He never actaully taught anything heretical. At worst, he wrote ambiguos documents that could be read either way. Perhaps he did this to attempt to perserve the unity of the Church. Perhaps it was a false sense of ecumenism. Whatever his reasons, his writings are not heretical, just ambiguos. Such would be the mark of a bad pastor, but not a fromal heretic in the sense in which we understand it. I believe that he was comdemned becasue he simply did not defend the faith as he should have.
    That being said, we have kind of had this discussion on another thread. People have kept asking, "Would the Pope be infallible if he became Eastern Orthodox". The answer is, of course not, because he if changed religions he would not be a Catholic, and could not actually be the Pope. The same would be true of a "heretical Pope". If a pope were to reject a matter of the Trinity or the Incarntion, as our EO brethren will accuse the Pope Honorius, then he would no longer be a Catholic, and would not actually be the Pope. But remember, this is hypothetical because I do NOT believe that Honorius was a formal heretic in the modern sense of the word. In fact, I do NOT believe that any Pope of Rome has ever been a heretic while in office as Pope.

    Of course you don't. But believing (or wishing) something to be true don't make it so.
    I  know that you guys dislike the Catholic faith so much that you hope and pray that the Pope would be a heretic but this doesn't make it so either.
    Why would we dislike our Catholic Faith?  And even if we were to do so, there would be no need to hope and pray for a pope of Rome to be a heretic. Pope Honorius is only one of many. And he was denounced as a heretic, and anathematized accordingly by an Ecumenical Council, Ecumenical even by the Vatican's own present definition, as Pope St. Agatho approved its Definition.

    I suppose you project a desire on our part for a heretical pope of Rome, to disprove Ultramontanism. But we can, IIRC, point to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who has never fallen to heresy, as far as I can remember, nor has the Archbishop of Cyprus.  The existence of two other "infallible"Churches itself voids the idea of Ultramontanism and the need for "Pastor Aeternus."

    Quotes edited - Michał Kalina.
    « Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 07:20:21 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #25 on: September 19, 2010, 01:57:18 AM »

    If unity with the Pope is a requirement to Catholicism then how could a council anathematize him for failing to teach?
    Well, the short answer is that a coucnil cannot anathematize him.

    And yet the Fifth Ecumenical Council did.

    The council was in error to do so.
    Then it wouldn't be Ecumenical (and infallible) then, would it?  You cannot claim it as an authroity, and hold it void at the same time.

    Councils are not infallible in their pastoral actions such as the anathemas of particular persons.
    Nestorius will rejoice to hear that.

    They are only infallible in the doctrines that they teach.
    Ibas and Theodore of Mopsuestia willl rejoice.

    So you would lift the anathemas against Nestorius and his ilk, hoping and praying for their rehabilitation because of your devotion to Ultramontanism.

    It would seem Pope Vigilius agreed with your ideas you expressed in your posts. That's why he was struck from the diptychs.
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    Wyatt
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Posts: 2,395


    « Reply #26 on: September 19, 2010, 11:15:35 AM »

    Councils are not infallible in their pastoral actions such as the anathemas of particular persons. They are only infallible in the doctrines that they teach.

    This part I am a bit unsure of because we consider the Second Vatican Council to be pastoral rather than dogmatic, but still an Ecumenical Council. If the only part of Ecumenical Councils which we are bound to accept are dogmatic and doctrinal parts, does that mean one can be a Catholic in good standing and completely reject Vatican II since it defined nothing?
    « Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 11:16:03 AM by Wyatt » Logged
    Papist
    Patriarch of Pontification
    Toumarches
    ************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine
    Posts: 12,143


    Truth, Justice, and the American way!


    « Reply #27 on: September 19, 2010, 11:17:27 AM »

    Councils are not infallible in their pastoral actions such as the anathemas of particular persons. They are only infallible in the doctrines that they teach.

    This part I am a bit unsure of because we consider the Second Vatican Council to be pastoral rather than dogmatic, but still an Ecumenical Council. If the only part of Ecumenical Councils which we are bound to accept are dogmatic and doctrinal parts, does that mean one can be a Catholic in good standing and completely reject Vatican II?
    Well, Vatican II is a bit more complicated than that. Yes, it's pastoral and not dogmatic in that it did not define any dogmas. However, it does teach what the Church has always taught and the dogmas taught in Vatican II are the same dogmas that have been infallibly proclaimed thoughout the centuries in actual dogmatic councils. So if one rejects Vatican II, such a person rejects the other councils.
    Logged

    Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
    Papist
    Patriarch of Pontification
    Toumarches
    ************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine
    Posts: 12,143


    Truth, Justice, and the American way!


    « Reply #28 on: September 19, 2010, 11:18:39 AM »

    Wyatt,
    As for the pastoral decisions of Vatican II, we are free to believe that some of them were unwise or that some statements were poorly worded and can be ambigous just as Horonius statements were ambiguous.
    Logged

    Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
    Paisius
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Multi-Jurisdictional
    Posts: 816


    Reframed


    « Reply #29 on: September 19, 2010, 03:56:23 PM »

    If unity with the Pope is a requirement to Catholicism then how could a council anathematize him for failing to teach?
    Well, the short answer is that a coucnil cannot anathematize him. The council was in error to do so. Councils are not infallible in their pastoral actions such as the anathemas of particular persons. They are only infallible in the doctrines that they teach.

    So did the council have the right to anathematize Sergius?
    « Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 03:57:00 PM by Paisius » Logged

    "Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #30 on: September 19, 2010, 04:36:14 PM »

    I believe that term "heretic" was used more broadly in the early Church. First of all, some one might be a heretic not just for professing false beliefs but for allowing such beliefs to spread. Such was the case of Honorius. He never actaully taught anything heretical. At worst, he wrote ambiguos documents that could be read either way. Perhaps he did this to attempt to perserve the unity of the Church. Perhaps it was a false sense of ecumenism. Whatever his reasons, his writings are not heretical, just ambiguos. Such would be the mark of a bad pastor, but not a fromal heretic in the sense in which we understand it. I believe that he was comdemned becasue he simply did not defend the faith as he should have.
    That being said, we have kind of had this discussion on another thread. People have kept asking, "Would the Pope be infallible if he became Eastern Orthodox". The answer is, of course not, because he if changed religions he would not be a Catholic, and could not actually be the Pope. The same would be true of a "heretical Pope". If a pope were to reject a matter of the Trinity or the Incarntion, as our EO brethren will accuse the Pope Honorius, then he would no longer be a Catholic, and would not actually be the Pope. But remember, this is hypothetical because I do NOT believe that Honorius was a formal heretic in the modern sense of the word. In fact, I do NOT believe that any Pope of Rome has ever been a heretic while in office as Pope.

    Of course you don't. But believing (or wishing) something to be true don't make it so.
    I  know that you guys dislike the Catholic faith so much that you hope and pray that the Pope would be a heretic but this doesn't make it so either.
    Why would we dislike our Catholic Faith?  And even if we were to do so, there would be no need to hope and pray for a pope of Rome to be a heretic. Pope Honorius is only one of many. And he was denounced as a heretic, and anathematized accordingly by an Ecumenical Council, Ecumenical even by the Vatican's own present definition, as Pope St. Agatho approved its Definition.

    I suppose you project a desire on our part for a heretical pope of Rome, to disprove Ultramontanism. But we can, IIRC, point to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who has never fallen to heresy, as far as I can remember, nor has the Archbishop of Cyprus.  The existence of two other "infallible"Churches itself voids the idea of Ultramontanism and the need for "Pastor Aeternus."

    Quotes edited - Michał Kalina.
    I thought I read that Pope Agatho was dead at the time? And it was Pope Leo II who approved the council's decision? But the letter of approval written by Leo was not so much that Honorius was guilty of heresy as it was that he did not move forcefully enough against the heresy and that Honorius was negligent? But it looks like the CE may not agree with this ?
    IMHO, I think that the popes have been wrong on other issues also such as slavery, torture, and usury, but a Catholic argument is that these were not infallbly taught.
    According to the conditions laid out by Father Sullivan, very few papal declarations would fall under the norm of infalliblity.
    The best solution for all of this is for the EO and RC Churches to agree to a reunion as it was before 1054. Then, by a simple extension of the argument of Father Sullivan, there would not be any infallible decisions made without the consent of the other (Orthodox ) Patriarchs. 
    Logged
    Mardukm
    Elder
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Coptic
    Posts: 423


    « Reply #31 on: September 20, 2010, 06:21:25 AM »

    What would happen today if the Pope was determined to be a heretic?
    According to St. Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, we would be bound as Catholics to oppose and correct him. 

    Quote
    Who would determine such a fact
    His brother bishops would certainly be competent to do so.

    Quote
    and who would excommunicate him?
    No one has the authority to excommunicate him. It's theoretically possible that he would simply be excommunicated latae sententiae.

    His deposition is another question altogether. There is nothing in our common Tradition in the first millenium to justify such an action today.  The anathematizaion of Pope Honorius is a really, really, really bad example because "Pope" Honorius was no longer Pope when he was anathematized -- ummm, he was dead.

    We do have one (maybe two) post-Schism examples when a Pope abdicated due to pressure from his brother bishops, and I can imagine that would be the only way it would happen.

    Blessings,
    Marduk
    Logged
    Irish Hermit
    Kibernetski Kaludjer
    Warned
    Merarches
    ***********
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 10,991


    Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


    « Reply #32 on: September 20, 2010, 06:46:51 AM »

    What would happen today if the Pope was determined to be a heretic?
    According to St. Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, we would be bound as Catholics to oppose and correct him. 

    Quote
    Who would determine such a fact
    His brother bishops would certainly be competent to do so.

    Quote
    and who would excommunicate him?
    No one has the authority to excommunicate him. It's theoretically possible that he would simply be excommunicated latae sententiae.

    His deposition is another question altogether. There is nothing in our common Tradition in the first millenium to justify such an action today.  The anathematizaion of Pope Honorius is a really, really, really bad example because "Pope" Honorius was no longer Pope when he was anathematized -- ummm, he was dead.

    We do have one (maybe two) post-Schism examples when a Pope abdicated due to pressure from his brother bishops, and I can imagine that would be the only way it would happen.

    Blessings,
    Marduk

    In the recent thread "Would the Pope Be Infallible If He Became Orthodox?"  several Catholics told me I was an ignoramus for holding the position you are here describing about excommunication and deposition of a Pope.  I am glad to see that I am not such a dolt as I was painted.  Unless of course they will now see you as a bit of a dolt too.   laugh
    Logged
    peccatorum
    Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: roman catholic
    Jurisdiction: Brazil
    Posts: 81



    « Reply #33 on: September 20, 2010, 08:35:06 AM »

    I am roman catholic but this issue is needing attention:
    1) It is a dogma of the holy church that a teaching not heretical considered canonical will always be righteous and canonical;
    2) However, the Pope at the time of the council Vatican ii (John xxiii), finished the tridentine mass and made the Holy Church some kind of "protestant catholicism", to get back the believers that converted to the protestantism;
    3) Authorized some movements in the church of pernicious nature, ending the 20 centuries tradition of the roman Catholic church, and (as always, I'm speaking about what I see, and I am in Brazil) allowed the believers to even TOUCH the communion wafer;
    4) Pope John Paul ii (the most beloved Pope) kept FORBIDEN the tridentine mass;
    5) Only with the Pope Benedict xvi the tridentine mass and some teachings are coming back because of his traditional nature;
    6) Even though, if you are a Roman Catholic priest (at least here in Brazil), you have to ask permission to your bishop to celebrate the mass on the good old fashion.
    Who considered these Popes heretical?
    Logged

    "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;
    Blessed are the pure in the heart, for they shall see God".
    theistgal
    Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
    Site Supporter
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
    Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
    Posts: 2,082


    don't even go there!


    « Reply #34 on: September 20, 2010, 08:44:35 AM »

    peccatorum, I can't answer all your points right now but just wanted to correct one point: it was Pope John Paul II who once again permitted the Tridentine version of the Mass in 1985.  And he caught a lot of flak for it at the time too. Smiley
    Logged

    "Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
    synLeszka
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 532


    « Reply #35 on: September 20, 2010, 10:33:17 AM »

    I am roman catholic but this issue is needing attention:
    1) It is a dogma of the holy church that a teaching not heretical considered canonical will always be righteous and canonical;
    2) However, the Pope at the time of the council Vatican ii (John xxiii), finished the tridentine mass and made the Holy Church some kind of "protestant catholicism", to get back the believers that converted to the protestantism;
    3) Authorized some movements in the church of pernicious nature, ending the 20 centuries tradition of the roman Catholic church, and (as always, I'm speaking about what I see, and I am in Brazil) allowed the believers to even TOUCH the communion wafer;
    4) Pope John Paul ii (the most beloved Pope) kept FORBIDEN the tridentine mass;
    5) Only with the Pope Benedict xvi the tridentine mass and some teachings are coming back because of his traditional nature;
    6) Even though, if you are a Roman Catholic priest (at least here in Brazil), you have to ask permission to your bishop to celebrate the mass on the good old fashion.
    Who considered these Popes heretical?
    I do not think that this is the place for that type of discussion.
    Logged
    Schultz
    Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: OCA
    Posts: 6,462


    Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


    WWW
    « Reply #36 on: September 20, 2010, 10:44:46 AM »

    peccatorum, I can't answer all your points right now but just wanted to correct one point: it was Pope John Paul II who once again permitted the Tridentine version of the Mass in 1985.  And he caught a lot of flak for it at the time too. Smiley

    i would also point out that number six is against canon law, as the most recent motu proprio from BXVI explicitly states that any priest [/i]anywhere[/i] may celebrate the Extraordinary Rite.  If the Brazilian bishops are stopping that, the priest has every right and even duty to appeal to the Vatican.
    Logged

    "Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
    peccatorum
    Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: roman catholic
    Jurisdiction: Brazil
    Posts: 81



    « Reply #37 on: September 20, 2010, 11:36:57 AM »

    I am really devoted to the church, but we must consider tradition over all things. Both the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and tridentine mass come from the time of the schism, and are both part of the identities of the churches.
    Last night (sunday) I couldn't watch the mass at the morning, and went at night. I NEVER heard the prayers the priest was conducing in the church!
    This way, we'll become like the famous "igreja universal do reino de deus", a neopentecostal church from Brazil that even have goals for the shepperds to reach IN MONEY!
    Extra ecclesiam nullas salus.
    Logged

    "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;
    Blessed are the pure in the heart, for they shall see God".
    peccatorum
    Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: roman catholic
    Jurisdiction: Brazil
    Posts: 81



    « Reply #38 on: September 20, 2010, 11:44:38 AM »

    And plus, I am not calling my Pope heretical, nor any Pope before him. I am just telling you all that it's a mass (yes, you can laugh) here in Brazil. If our bishops don't wake up, who knows where it ends?... Brazilian people like fun and parties, and there are FATHERS doing anything to gather more believers in their churches.
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    Logged

    "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;
    Blessed are the pure in the heart, for they shall see God".
    synLeszka
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 532


    « Reply #39 on: September 20, 2010, 11:58:14 AM »

    I am really devoted to the church, but we must consider tradition over all things. Both the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and tridentine mass come from the time of the schism, and are both part of the identities of the churches.
    Last night (sunday) I couldn't watch the mass at the morning, and went at night. I NEVER heard the prayers the priest was conducing in the church!
    This way, we'll become like the famous "igreja universal do reino de deus", a neopentecostal church from Brazil that even have goals for the shepperds to reach IN MONEY!
    Extra ecclesiam nullas salus.
    Even if Catholics sing on guitars at Mass and sing modern-style music at Church, they still will be Catholics. Our doctrine will shine out, for it is a sign of derision for the pagans. Even modern conceptions of Catholicism are sickening for Protestants. The Protestants will not produce followers of St.Francis de Assisi. They do not believe in good works but Catholics do. The liturgical reform does not hinder the announcement of the Gospel. All of Europe secularised after 1970, not just the Catholic countries. The argument that Vatican II destroyed the Catholic Faith is an error, because secularisation also occurred at the same time in Greece and Scandinavia. In the face of the gains of atheism and immorality, Christianity cannot restrict itself to believing that some restitution of the past who return the world on the right track. After the French Revolution, many Catholic intellectuals in Europe fought for the restoration of Christian monarchy because they believed that their conception of tradition is most important. In places the monarchy was restored but what did that help? In what way does the monarchy and Latin prayers keep people in the Church? It does not. St.Augustine says that the bishops must prevent the Church from going the way of the Pharisees for the Gospel is a light burden. The restrictive regulations which accumulated through the centuries caused the Church to be insular, leading to a triumphalistic self-admiration. The reform is not reversable.
    Logged
    peccatorum
    Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: roman catholic
    Jurisdiction: Brazil
    Posts: 81



    « Reply #40 on: September 20, 2010, 12:30:17 PM »

    You misunderstood me. I do not mean that a restitution of the past is the solution, but our countenance before Christ. Our society thinks it's the opposite, that there will be no life after death, and you shall enjoy life HERE.
    Most priests ask if you're married when you confess fornication, because it is so usual here (in Brazil, specially in Rio de Janeiro, there are parties called baile funk, try to google or ask about to Fabio Mello, where 13 years old go without panties to have sex and there are tables filled with cocaine free for people to sniff), that if you aren't, the penitence is so light that I doubt people do not do it again.
    Logged

    "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;
    Blessed are the pure in the heart, for they shall see God".
    synLeszka
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 532


    « Reply #41 on: September 20, 2010, 12:49:32 PM »

    You misunderstood me. I do not mean that a restitution of the past is the solution, but our countenance before Christ. Our society thinks it's the opposite, that there will be no life after death, and you shall enjoy life HERE.
    Most priests ask if you're married when you confess fornication, because it is so usual here (in Brazil, specially in Rio de Janeiro, there are parties called baile funk, try to google or ask about to Fabio Mello, where 13 years old go without panties to have sex and there are tables filled with cocaine free for people to sniff), that if you aren't, the penitence is so light that I doubt people do not do it again.
    To tell you the truth, when I think of Rio de Janeiro I think of this
    Well, it is the same all over the world except it takes on different forms.
    Here in Eastern Europe, the problem is drunkendness and loud fights.
    Logged
    stashko
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
    Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
    Posts: 4,998


    Wonderworking Sitka Icon


    « Reply #42 on: September 20, 2010, 12:59:26 PM »

    That Idol Does Come in Handy ,People climb up on it's Arms and Sky Dive From it.... Grin
    « Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 01:01:33 PM by stashko » Logged

    ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
    peccatorum
    Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: roman catholic
    Jurisdiction: Brazil
    Posts: 81



    « Reply #43 on: September 20, 2010, 01:06:28 PM »

    Here we are passing through a great time of religious anarchy (of course, in my point of view, there is people who think I am mad)...
    Logged

    "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;
    Blessed are the pure in the heart, for they shall see God".
    ialmisry
    There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
    Hypatos
    *****************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
    Posts: 37,124



    « Reply #44 on: September 20, 2010, 02:09:57 PM »

    You misunderstood me. I do not mean that a restitution of the past is the solution, but our countenance before Christ. Our society thinks it's the opposite, that there will be no life after death, and you shall enjoy life HERE.
    Most priests ask if you're married when you confess fornication, because it is so usual here (in Brazil, specially in Rio de Janeiro, there are parties called baile funk, try to google or ask about to Fabio Mello, where 13 years old go without panties to have sex and there are tables filled with cocaine free for people to sniff), that if you aren't, the penitence is so light that I doubt people do not do it again.
    To tell you the truth, when I think of Rio de Janeiro I think of this
    Well, it is the same all over the world except it takes on different forms.
    Here in Eastern Europe, the problem is drunkendness and loud fights.
    Ah, Christ the Redeemer. Raised in happier, more moral days (1922-1931). It was restored in 2010. May morality among the Brazilians be restored as well.

    Btw, the project was first suggested to the Imperial Family but the regent Isabel showed no interest, and then the abolition of the monarchy brought a seperation of church and state. This made it possible for the statute to be raised by the Brazilian people. Oddly, the Regent Isabel and the rest of the Imperial family were planning to return from exile in 1921 when she died, not to see the beginnings of the Statue.

    I'm afraid at present, I think of this when I hear of Rio

    If only they took Lent as seriously as they take carnival.
    Logged

    Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
    A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
    and urgent strife sheds blood.
    If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
    if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                               and both come out of your mouth
    Tags: papacy Honorius 
    Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
      Print  
     
    Jump to:  

    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
    Page created in 0.169 seconds with 73 queries.