OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 02:37:01 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope  (Read 836 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
gueranger
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 270


St. Alexis of Wilkes Barre, pray for me a sinner.


« on: November 19, 2014, 12:59:32 PM »

I have never seen a Catholic source admit that Pope Viligilus was excommunicated, but here it is as a caption on the Remnant.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope


It is amazing to read the mental gymnastics they go through to reconcile deposing a Pope while upholding Vatican I. If the the Pope can be deposed for heresy, he is not the guarantee of unity or orthodoxy. The faith is. And that's Orthodoxy!
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,198


Scheherazade


« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2014, 01:41:00 PM »

My favorite explanation is that Pope Vigilius was stricken from the diptychs because he was the pope and that Justinian and the council knew they needed his approval to legitimize the council. So far from being a rebuke to modern Catholic claims it actually confirms them.  Cheesy





« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 01:41:34 PM by Paisius » Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,801



« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2014, 03:38:47 AM »

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 03:39:09 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Minnesotan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Raised evangelical, inquiring into Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Interested in becoming Antiochian
Posts: 470


From the Land of 10,000 Lakes


« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2014, 03:50:21 AM »

Yeah, the Old Catholics definitely had a point, but unfortunately their side lost.

There is an ongoing dialogue between the Old Catholics and the Orthodox, and there are agreements on most of the main doctrines, but there are several sticking points that may be very hard to iron out (like women's ordination among some OC's, and intercommunion with outside groups like Anglicans).
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,355


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2014, 11:13:22 AM »

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

But, but...Theodore Abu Qurrah!!!!!!!!!
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
PorphyriosK
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 40



« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2014, 11:28:40 PM »

I have never seen a Catholic source admit that Pope Viligilus was excommunicated, but here it is as a caption on the Remnant.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope


It is amazing to read the mental gymnastics they go through to reconcile deposing a Pope while upholding Vatican I. If the the Pope can be deposed for heresy, he is not the guarantee of unity or orthodoxy. The faith is. And that's Orthodoxy!

My understanding is that there is the office of the papacy, and then there is the person holding the office.  The office of the papacy, the See of Rome, is the guarantee of unity and orthodoxy, not necessarily the individual seated in it.  The individual who is occupying that office at any given time can be faithful or unfaithful.  Most of the time he is faithful, but there have been times in history where he was not faithful.  In those times, he was either prevented from teaching heresy, or was removed from holding the office.  That's what I've come to understand.  I could be wrong.  If so, maybe someone can correct me.
Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,198


Scheherazade


« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2014, 12:18:41 AM »

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....


Is this an accurate quote?
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,801



« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2014, 04:40:15 AM »

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....


Is this an accurate quote?

Well, the stated source for the quote is:

Quaest. in IV Sent. Quote in: “L'Infaillibilité du pape et le Syllabus", (Besançon: Jacquin; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1904)



So........   good luck finding a 1904 book on the internet, we may never know if it is true or not!

EDIT: Actually, it is found! Lets see.. brb!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 04:42:26 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,801



« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2014, 04:51:49 AM »

Ok, for the source on Pope Adrian IV saying that Popes may be heretics and previous popes were heretics there is this passage from that book where the author quotes him:

Quote
Celui qui devait être Adrien VI a examiné cette question dans son commentaire sur le Maître des Sentences et l'a résolue avec une précision et une netteté qui ne laissent rien à désirer : « Dico primo quod si per Romanam Ecclesian intelligatur caput ejus, puta pontifex, certum est quod possit errare, etiam in iis quae tangerent fldem, haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. Plures enim fuerunt pontifices Romani hœretici, etc. (1). »

At the 1 this is stated:

Quote
Adrien VI, Questiones in quartum Sententiarum, De sacramento confirmationis, in fine, Venumdatur in œdibus Jodoci Badii, fol. en v. L'ouvrage a été réimprimé sous le pontificat d'Adrien VI sans que ce passage ait été modifié. Sur quoi ceux qui sont choqués par cette doctrine font l'observation que voici : « Non perciô è a dirsi, ch'egli corne papa conformasse una sift'atta proposizione. Quante volte non si ristampano délie opere, senzachè ne sia consapevole l'autore, o che ne abbia dato l'ultima mano ? » (Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storicoecclesiastica, 1.1", pp. 104,105). L'observation est juste; mais, en regard de ce qui est possible, il faut considérer ce qui est probable; or, il est probable que les réimpressions ont été faites de l'aveu de l'auteur, devenu pape. Et pourquoi nous étonnerions-nous de voir Adrien VI professer la même doctrine qu'Adrien II, Innocent III, Innocent IV?

With all the mixing of french and latin, with my failures in french class when I was younger, I cannot tell what is being said much, but It appears the source is from that first latin thingy listed there...


link to the book

http://books.google.com/books?id=pYgvAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA118&lpg=RA1-PA118&dq=L%27Infaillibilite%CC%81+du+pape+et+le+Syllabus&source=bl&ots=U1mrvYQugR&sig=OqwHMF_86iG44sSIDNQX6VbfYzQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rp1xVMOqBMydgwTpvIKICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=adrien&f=false

go to page 21 for this passage
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,801



« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2014, 04:53:14 AM »

Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

But, but...Theodore Abu Qurrah!!!!!!!!!

I never heard of this person, how does he relate to Papal Infallibility??? Did he speak about the Pope?
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
gueranger
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 270


St. Alexis of Wilkes Barre, pray for me a sinner.


« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2014, 08:12:38 AM »

I never heard of this person, how does he relate to Papal Infallibility??? Did he speak about the Pope?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=49842.0;wap2
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 02:27:35 PM »

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.


If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
gueranger
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 270


St. Alexis of Wilkes Barre, pray for me a sinner.


« Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 02:33:14 PM »

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.


If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.


Yes, but deposing a pope is entirely different from disagreeing with him. Deposing a Pope seems to completely undermine papal supremacy of jurisdiction...

Deposing a pope also undermines infallibility in a secondary way. If a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement and someone disagrees with it they can argue that he should be deposed for heresy and the new dogma rejected. The idea of deposing a pope undermines the stability that the office supposedly provides.

Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 02:44:44 PM »

Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.


If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.


Yes, but deposing a pope is entirely different from disagreeing with him. Deposing a Pope seems to completely undermine papal supremacy of jurisdiction...

Yes its impossible in the Catholicism. Yet the fact is explained by Pope Innocent III and St.Robert Bellarmine in that a pipe can be shown to be s formal heretic. A catholic ceases to be catholic once he entered formal heresy and is thus a layman. Once shown to be a formal heretic he can be tried and judged

Pope Innocent III († 1216) stated that a pope can wither away into heresy and not believe the Faith.


"The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because "he who does not believe is already judged." (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men. '" (Sermo 4)

The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office

Quote
Deposing a pope also undermines infallibility in a secondary way. If a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement and someone disagrees with it they can argue that he should be deposed for heresy and the new dogma rejected. The idea of deposing a pope undermines the stability that the office supposedly provides.



Straw man. It would need to be the magesterium which shows the pope to be at least a material heretic as John XXII and if he refuses to accept correction he is thus a formal heretic, no more catholic an thus the person is being judged is not a Pope but a layman.

Secondly an Ex Cathedra Pronouncement cannot be heretical as the Holy Spirit guides the pope and protects him from teaching error when defining something to be held by all as a matter of faith.

Finally the Pope must deny a de fide doctrine for all this to happen.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 02:57:19 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 358



« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 03:33:06 PM »

Trying to combine this with papal infallibility is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy (changing a definition to exclude anything that doesn't fit the example), though. Of course popes have never erred if you automatically exclude all erring popes. It's like saying all apples are red, and any apples that are green are actually pears. You can either have Pope Innocent III or Pope Pius IX, not both.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 03:33:43 PM by Regnare » Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #15 on: Yesterday at 04:57:23 PM »

Trying to combine this with papal infallibility is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy (changing a definition to exclude anything that doesn't fit the example), though. Of course popes have never erred if you automatically exclude all erring popes. It's like saying all apples are red, and any apples that are green are actually pears. You can either have Pope Innocent III or Pope Pius IX, not both.

No this is a straw man

No Papal infallibility was defined specifically in the way it was so that no contradiction between what has been taught and what infallibility is exists. These men are all speaking of the ordinary capacity if the Popes which is true 100%. That's why such quotes haven't shaken the catholic church today because we know our tradition. Even if you would wish we didn't.


Its is a fact that formal heretic is not a catholic plain and simple. Arians aren't catholic. They are Arian...

No pope has ever been a formal heretic and that right there is the truth. Even when Pope Adrian mentions Pope John XII , he was a material heretic who renounced his error on a theological opinion as the issue hadn't even been decided yet. Pius IX already deals with liberius and Pope Liberius' actions alone show his true faith. Honorius was not a heretic as any basic reading of his letter proves. He is not even speaking of the same thing a sergius and all Pope after Honorius defended his orthodoxy. Honorius spoke of the teaching of Paul of conflicting wills of flesh and the spirit in human nature and thus concluded of Christs humanity that it had only one will. Which is true. Secondly this this is corroborated by the living testimony of the co-author of the letter; Honorius' scribe [The Abbot John] whom even St.Maximus the confessor testifies to his testimony as proof of his defence of Honorius. Secondly all subsequent popes who spoke about Honorius say exactly the same. In the west he was condemned for negligence as Leo stated quite explicitly in his various letters to the kings and bishops of the west. Leo stated he was condemned for failing to stop the rise of a heresy by failing to teach. As honorius rather told the Parties involved to desist from such talk. Venerable Bede is proof of how the west saw Honorius in that he describes him as a man known for his orthodoxy . The Vigilius case, lol that case was a joke and has been discussed to death on CAF.

Robert Bellarmine puts a good defense of all the controversial popes to prove none had been formal heretics

But I don't want to debate here as i really haven't got the energy for it. Just thought I should correct the incorrect interpretation here of these quotes as most of such quotes are post schism and the west post schism had an explicit belief in papal infallibility through not formally defined. Hence the Beatific vision controversy was settled with a Papal Bull and not pondered any further. The matter was settled. Although it was widely believed (Papal infallibility)  it was theological opinion at the time as it had not been formally defined hence Ireland had numerous fathers teaching against papal infallibility although even their idea of what papal infallibility was does not exist today as it was false.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 05:08:39 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 358



« Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 05:31:47 PM »

"Even if you would wish we didn't." Honestly. Don't try and make me into some kind of polemicist, Wandile. I spent a year wishing that I would find Catholic apologetics that sufficiently answered Orthodox criticisms so I would have a reason not to convert twice, but I didn't. If I was just trying to justify myself, I would still be Roman Catholic.
I understand that a formal heretic is not a Catholic. Orthodox believe the same thing. If the pope's infallibility comes down to being expelled from the Church (and therefore not being a pope anymore) when he tries to use his authority to promote heresy, then he is no different from any other bishop, Catholic or Orthodox. But if he's truly infallible, then it is impossible for him to be a formal heretic under any circumstances. That's why your argument comes back to arguing that all popes have been orthodox. Because if the pope can be a formal heretic, then he is no longer the last safeguard of tradition, since someone else's judgment is needed to scrutinise his pronouncements for heresy.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 05:59:39 PM »

I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me? Sad

The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 06:04:50 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 358



« Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 10:15:22 PM »

I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me? Sad
Absolutely. I think it's quite common on both sides of this debate to start seeing your opponents as interchangeable, without their own reasons for being engaged in this debate. Good for you for knowing your own limitations.
Quote
The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.
So what you're saying is that the idea of deposing a pope for heresy only applies to his private statements, not his ex cathedra ones. Fair enough. How do we know which is which, given that there can be no set form to an ex cathedra proclamation?
Logged
Laurentius
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Yes a little
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 99


Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)


« Reply #19 on: Today at 01:47:22 AM »

Pope Honorius was excommunicated after his death, but still.

Logged

Holy Mother of God, save us!
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #20 on: Today at 08:25:59 AM »

I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me? Sad
Absolutely. I think it's quite common on both sides of this debate to start seeing your opponents as interchangeable, without their own reasons for being engaged in this debate. Good for you for knowing your own limitations.
Quote
The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.
So what you're saying is that the idea of deposing a pope for heresy only applies to his private statements, not his ex cathedra ones. Fair enough.

Yes

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Quote
How do we know which is which, given that there can be no set form to an ex cathedra proclamation?

When he speaks definitively and conclusively on a matter as something to be held for all Catholics as true.
« Last Edit: Today at 08:30:15 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #21 on: Today at 08:32:29 AM »

Pope Honorius was excommunicated after his death, but still.



Yes on the charge of heresy by the eastern churches (which I've explained why their charge was wrong). In the West he was excommunicated not for heresy but for negligence/failure to stop the rise of heresy.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,355


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #22 on: Today at 11:54:13 AM »

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,800


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #23 on: Today at 12:40:51 PM »

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.
Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 952


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #24 on: Today at 01:21:07 PM »

Since I've recently ended up a Universal Reconciliationist, it really doesn't matter to me which Popes are heretics or not- because to me, just about everyone's been getting at least one thing wrong since the days of St. Augustine of Hippo.  laugh Yes, you heard that right- the Byzantine Catholic here has, after a long period of study and thought, become a horribly horrible Universalist heretic who believes in a temporary, purifying Hades, but not a fiery everlasting Hell. Everybody run away!
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,690



« Reply #25 on: Today at 01:38:46 PM »

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: Today at 01:50:48 PM »

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.



Because, as we all know, there is absolutely none of this in EO explanation of what is and is not an Ecumenical Council. </sarcasm>
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #27 on: Today at 02:13:11 PM »

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

The college of bishops. Nothing circular here. Just like when the bishops many times argued with John XXII but at least at the time the issue had not been defined. But yes the bishops would determine this as has happened in the past
« Last Edit: Today at 02:16:16 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,155


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #28 on: Today at 02:15:24 PM »

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.



Nothing circular at all. It's plain fact. I wont even bring up the circular reasoning of the orthodox when it comes to what constitutes an ecumenical council for that is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.122 seconds with 57 queries.