Would you mind replying in one post rather than in multiple? It makes using the quote function a pain, which makes it more difficult to respond succinctly.
Remember. you asked for it.
Great Western Schism: You claimed that neither the Roman Line nor the Avignon Line created the Council of Constance. This is incorrect. It was created by the Roman and Pisan lines and later recognized by the Avignon line.
No, I stated the fact that it could not, consistently with papal claims, determine the Councils choice of pope.
The Roman See, not the rest of the Church, is the authority on what the magisterium teaches.Yes, hence your charism problem, at least how we see it. But in your ecclesiastical communion, where infidels and atheists can baptize validly but the priests the Vatican ordains cannot ordinarily christmate, where the couples marry themselves in a spiritual common law marriage but the qorban factory a/k/a the marriage tribunal have to dissolve, er, annul it, where infants the Vatican baptized cannot commune but Orthodox who do not recognize the validity of can commune....well, ya'll dance to a different drummer, and your milage varies.
This does not mean there is a special charism in the Roman Pontiff's ordination, which is what we were discussing. The Roman Pontiff is an ordained Priest like any other ordained Priest and a consecrated Bishop like any other consecrated Bishop.Yes, every priest is alter Christi but the supreme pontiff is His vicar.
Like I said, special charism through the seat.
Very odd to make communion and submission to the office essential to salvation, and place no importance of the correct holder of the office.It is the authority of the magisterium to determine who the Pope is,
So, why not go with Pope Novatian?
The Roman See, not the rest of the Church, is the authority on what the magisterium teaches.my, isn't that wonderfully circular.
as in the case of the Western Schism it did at the Council of Constance.
Neither the Roman See nor the Avignon See determined the Council of Constance.
The Council of Constance finally resolved the situation. Gregory XII appointed Carlo Malatesta and Cardinal Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies. The cardinal then convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts, thus preserving the formulas of Papal supremacy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_XII
Thereupon on 4 July 1415, Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the Pope, which the cardinals accepted. According to prior agreement, they agreed to retain all the cardinals that had been created by Gregory XII, thus satisfying the Correr clan, and appointed Gregory XII Bishop of Frascati, dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals and perpetual legate at Ancona.
However, when King Alfonso had achieved his political goals, he sent a delegation in 1428 (headed by Alfonso de Borgia, the future Callixtus III), to persuade Clement to recognise Martin. Clement's abdication on 26 July 1429 was confirmed in mid-August. Clement had to make a penitential submission in forma to Martin V, and when this was done Martin granted Sanchez Muñoz the bishopric of Palma. Sanchez Muñoz died on 28 December 1446.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Clement_VIII
In Florence he met Sigismund, who had just been crowned King of Germany and who had ambitions to become emperor. Sigismund wanted to end the schism and urged John to call a general council. John did so with hesitation, afraid that he could be deposed at the council. The Council of Constance was convened in November 1412. During the third session, rival Pope Gregory XII authorized the council as well. The council resolved that all three popes should abdicate and a new pope be elected.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII
Interesting all those rulers you mention. We are told that caesaropapism was an eastern thing.
Your supreme pontifff claims that the Church cannot hold an Ecumenical Council without him: he must call it, he must approve it, and if the demise of the tiara comes during it, the Council adjures and must be reconvened by the new pope. "The college of bishops never acts without its head, the Roman Pontiff." Under those strictures, Constance had no compentency to choose a new pope.
since the Vatican doesn't publish an official list (how convenient
), we have to go with the most authoritative, the Annuario Pontificio, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
and the one with the "Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York." of NewAdventhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
so we get this
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
so your papacy hangs on a Council (Constance) called by a pope (John XXIII) which the council then declared an antipope (something that contributes to the mess of the numbering of Pope Johns, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_(numbering
such that Pope John XXIII Roncalli had to "resolve" it ex cathedra)-with what authority in the Ultramontanist system is not explained-which credentialled and accepted representatives of a rival pope (Gregory XII) who resiged within the same bull that he recogized the council of Constance, while the legitimate successor at Avignon (Pope Beedict XIII) refused to recognize Constance, continuing to the succession of Pope Clement VII, who was elected to undo the elevation by the Roman mob of Urban VI to the papacy. Constance, acting without its head-declaring its convoker an antipope and accepting the resignation, and hence sede vacans, of the claimant it thereafter recognized-and over the objection of the Avignon Papacy, it went on to elect Martin V Pope with conciliar stipulations, which "Pope" Martin V failed to fullfill. Yeah, that inspires lots of confidence.
Given all this weirdness going on in the succession of supreme pontiffs, this and for instance Pope Felix IV appointing Pope Boniface I his successor (something I doubt canonical), who anathematized the elected Pope Dioscorus, which anathema was burned by Pope Boniface's successor, Pope Agapetus, who was succeeded by Pope Vigilius, who had been designated by Pope Boniface as his successor and then withdrew the designation under opposition, I'm inclined to open a thread on all the many, many weak links in the supreme pontifical chain under Ultramontanist claims.
On the rebuke of Victor I: Yes, rebuke means to strongly criticize. So what? You've already yourself noted that your argument is a non sequitur because even under the Orthodox autocephalous view, any Bishop has the right to excommunicate if they so choose.
It is a non sequitur in Orthodox ecclesiology, but not in Ultramontanist claims. The resolution of the Meletian schism and the utter and complete failure of Rome's meddling in the matter demonstrates that point.
When the Patriarch of Moscow struck the EP from the diptychs, the other 13 Churches let both know that they were not removing either from there diptychs, and the matter didn't develop into a schism. The other Churches let Pope St. Victor the same notice. Since they were all Orthodox, it worked out. If Pope Victor had the power the Ultramontanists attribute to him, "Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, [who] immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate,"his letters would have settled the matter, and the Churches would have to tried to talk some sense into Poplycrates. But we have no evidence at all that they tried to induce the Asians to accept the common date. Just that they rebuked Pope Victor and told him to leave well enough alone. btw, it is interesting that the Ultramontanist and urlatin Jerome writes on Polycrates
Polycrates bishop of the Ephesians with other bishops of Asia who in accordance with some ancient custom celebrated the passover with the Jews on the fourteenth of the month, wrote a synodical letter against Victor bishop of Rome in which he says that he follows the authority of the apostle John and of the ancients. From this we make the following brief quotations, We therefore celebrate the day according to usage, inviolably, neither adding anything to nor taking anything from it, for in Asia lie the remains of the greatest saints of those who shall rise again on the day of the Lord, when he shall come in majesty from heaven and shall quicken all the saints, I mean Philip one of the twelve apostles who sleeps at Hierapolis and his two daughters who were virgins until their death and another daughter of his who died at Ephesus full of the Holy Spirit. And John too, who lay on Our Lord's breast and was his high priest carrying the golden frontlet on his forehead, both martyr and doctor, fell asleep at Ephesus and Polycarp bishop and martyr died at Smyrna. Thraseas of Eumenia also, bishop and martyr, rests in the same Smyrna. What need is there of mentioning Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who sleeps in Laodicea and the blessed Papyrus and Melito, eunuch in the Holy Spirit, who, ever serving the Lord, was laid to rest in Sardis and there awaits his resurrection at Christ's advent. These all observed the day of the passover on the fourteenth of the month, in nowise departing from the evangelical tradition and following the ecclesiastical canon. I also, Polycrates, the least of all your servants, according to the doctrine of my relatives which I also have followed (for there were seven of my relatives bishops indeed and I the eighth) have always celebrated the passover when the Jewish people celebrated the putting away of the leaven. And so brethren being sixty-five years old in the Lord and instructed by many brethren from all parts of the world, and having searched all the Scriptures, I will not fear those who threaten us, for my predecessors said It is fitting to obey God rather than men. I quote this to show through a small example the genius and authority of the man. He flourished in the reign of the emperor Severus in the same period as Narcissus of Jerusalem.
and on Victor he says
Victor, thirteenth bishop of Rome, wrote, On the Paschal Controversy and some other small works. He ruled the church for ten years in the reign of the Emperor Severus.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm
Later events give the lie even to this view, however.
LOL. They make the Orthodox position even stronger. For one thing, you Ultramontanists like to overstress the pronouncments Rome made, and try to ignore if they were followed through, e.g.:
Pope Saint Innocent I had the name of Saint John Chrysostom restored to the diptychs of Constantinople over the objections of Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria.
The emperor and Patriarch igored Pope St. Innocent I. St. John got back into the diptychs because the Faithful of Constatinople refused to recognize his deposition: despite the emperor issuing edict upon edict banning it, they continued to attend DL in the open air celebrated by priests loyal to St. John, and bishops throughout the East refused communion with the patriarchs. Rome's delegation never entered the City. St. John's nemesis Eudoxia predeceased him, and the Emperor Arcadius followed in 408. Pope Cyril restored St. John's name in 418, the year after Pope Innocent's death. St. John was fully rehabilitated and glorified under Nestorius, the disciple of St. John's circles in Antioch, within the decade. Pope Innocent played no direct role.
Pope Saint Gelasius I had the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople struck from those very same diptychs over the objections of Acacius' successor Euphemius and the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I.
Pope St. Gelasius I wrote "Duo sunt" which had a lot of influence in the West but none in the East, including the failure to strike Pat. Acacius' name from the diptychs. That didn't happen until 519, over two decades after Pope Gelasius' death. Again, the actions of the Faithful in Constantinople and the ascension of a pro-Chalcedonian dyasty did that, but even then, only as many bishops as the emperor could get his hands on (basically, the capital) signed the formula of Hormisdas. The Pope's suffragan in Thessalonica tore it in two and stomped on it., and the Patriarch of Constantinople ammended it before signing.
When Pope Nicholas I ruled that Ignatios, not Photios, was the rightful Patriarch, Photios could not simply ignore the ruling but rather had to accuse Nicholas of heresy on the pretext of the west's use of the Filioque.
EP St. Phontius could not simply ignore the ruling because he himself had called the council and invited Rome's delegates to preside, and in 861 they, including Pope Nicholas' delegates, found St. Photios the valid patriarch. Pope Nicholas was furious and arrogated to himself the power to call a council in 863 in Rome of his own bishops-i.e. not of any other patriarchate, including Constantinople-and depose and laicize EP St. Photios as having void election and consecration. Everyone dismissed it as the uncanonical intererence in another patriarchate that it was. EP St. Photios could not ignore that the Pope at Rome duirng EP St. Photios' childhood, Leo III, at condemned the approval of the flioque at the Frankish council of Aachen, and he set up on silver tablets on the doors of St. Peter's and the shrie of st. Paul outside the walls, the original Creed of Constantinople (i.e. without fillioque) with the inscription «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith). But Pope Nicholas did, imposing it in Bulgaria and Moravia (St. Photius had sent SS. Cyril and Methodius to evangelize the slavs). So EP St. Ignatius convened a council in 867 and excommunicated Pope Nicholas (so much for the pope not being judged). It was only the change of dynasty, and the founder of the new dynasty seeking an alliance with the West, that prevented implimentation and caused EP St. Photios to be deposed, and EP St. Ignatius restored.
Things didn't work according to Pope Nicholas' little Roman council of 863. So another council was called in 869-870 with 12 bishops (rising only to perhaps 103), which would be superfluous if a) Pope Nicholas had the powers ascribed to him by the the Ultramontanists and b) if the Roman council had any validity. The 869 council of Constantiople led to the attachment of Bulgaria to Constantinople's jurisdiction, so Pope Nicholas' latiinizing missionaries were expelled, the filioque suppressed, and Pope Nicholas' Ultramontramonist claims rebuked. EP St. Ignatius was reconciled to EP St. Photios, so the latter succeeded to the former in 877, and a Council of 383-more than any Ecumenical Council except Chalcedon-convened as Constantinople IV in 879, anathematized the council of 868, voided its acts and condemned the filioque. Rome accepted it as Constantinople IV, untill after the schism and its caesaropapist Investiture controversy, when it found it too useful to have the 869 canons quoted as fragments in a anti-Photios polemic, and took those scraps as its "eighth ecumenical council."
Pre-schism Popes making decisions about who was and was not a valid Patriarch of Constantinople demonstrates clear Papal jurisdiction over the whole Church.
Pre-schism EP St. Photios making decisions about who was and was not the Orthodox Pope of Old Rome in 867 demonstrates clear jurisdiction over the Church of Rome.
And the events show the similarity of the Popes who ranted Ultramontanist claims ex cathedra from Rome and Emperor Pu Yi ruling as Emperor of China with the Mandate of Heaven, but only in the confines of the Forbidden City. The resolution of the Meletian Schism in Antioch, and the fact that all four primates that the Vatican sends the pallium to in Antioch never claim Paulinus, they all claim Pat. St. Meletius, more than amply show how hollow such claims of juridiction over the whole Church, examples which can, and have, been multiplied.
On the issue of charism, at this point it isn't clear what you are arguing. You started out by saying that a candidate could not be consecrated Bishop of Rome because he had some special charism of consecration that other Bishops do not. Since then you have just been arguing about Papal infallibility. The Pope's infallibility as the representative of the magisterium has nothing to do with anything about the formal rite of his consecration in the Petrine seat that makes it different from the formal consecration of any other Bishops.
the claimed infallibility comes by no sacrament, an oddity in the sacramentology of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which only confers the graces of charisms through a Holy Mystery/sacrament. Placing him as the "visible head," it creates a super order which has no ordination, no any minister who could cofer it, as "the bettter always blesses the lesser."
charism attached to some abstract office or inanimate object like a cathedra, no, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church knows of no such things.