OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 05:48:58 AM *
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 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can Views on Infallibility Be Merged?  (Read 15801 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #180 on: January 01, 2011, 12:02:59 AM »

Happy MMXI !

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.

You are observing a tactic.  It is designed, along with those directly meaningless cut and paste inclusions, to reduce the opportunity for a succinct discussion of realities, and of the opportunity for honest dialogue using ancient methods and rules, etc.   It is meant to keep you too busy and too frustrated to respond.  So don't respond.  Just keep repeating what is true.


Why are no Catholics responding to my questions of 5 days ago, in message 200?   <wail>   Is the prospect of the Pope returning to the position he held in the Church a thousand years ago too frightening to even contemplate?

---
One wonders if the Popes are ready for unity?  How will they handle the new circumstances of their lessened authority, that at major Councils involving the whole Church they will have one vote as does any other bishop?  How will they handle the fact that they may be outvoted and the bishops may decide against the Pope's proposals and teachings?   It will be a very difficult thing for him to accept but God will give him the humility.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 12:14:02 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #181 on: January 01, 2011, 12:12:58 AM »


I disagree with Father Ambrose of NZ.  Many Orthodox are not fearful of the papal Church.  Some are envious to the point where they seek to destroy by any means possible.  Now let's hear the huffing and puffing that comes back to me
laugh

The fear of the Orthodox is driven by the memories of the suffering inflicted by Catholics during the Crusades, during the times when they were creating the pseudo-Orthodox Churches-in-communion-with-Rome (in those days called Uniate Churches) in many Orthodox countries, and such events as the horrific persecution and massacre of our people in WWII.  Forgive we must, forget we dare not.

These are the reasons our people are fearful of the Pope's Church.

You speak of some of us being envious?   What do you have in mind?  Of what are we envious?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #182 on: January 01, 2011, 12:18:35 AM »

Happy MMCI !


it is really their inability to refute him that he counts on as he and Father Ambrose groom the next generation in the fine art of disinformation.


Spoken like a true daughter of the Unholy Office.  Sad

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #183 on: January 01, 2011, 12:20:52 AM »


But knocking Him down is a crime against the State.   Wink

Did Vatican City State bring a charge against the woman?  Was any sentence imposed?  Does the Vatican have a prison for criminals?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #184 on: January 01, 2011, 12:21:55 AM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

The Archbishop of Baltimore, Maryland USA is in Communion with the Pope AND is subject to the Pope who appoints the Archbishop to his see.

The Melkite Patriarch may not be subject to Rome nor is He appointed by Rome even though He receives the pallium from Rome; however, His relationship to Rome is not the same as, for sake of argument, the Patriarch of Georgia to the Patriarch of Serbia.  Both of them are in Communion with each other, but neither one is subject to the other.

Patriarch Gregorios III makes it clear that the Orthodox Church can't accept modern Latin ecclesiology

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1936239/posts

Quote
GRÉGOIRE III: The Orthodox Church cannot accept Roman ecclesiology as such. It must be understood that the ecclesiology developed in the Latin Church cannot be imposed on Eastern Christians. They can accept the primacy of the Pope as titular of the prima sedes and as last recourse. But not the praxis of centralism without real collegiality. If Rome wants to go ahead it should take up the formulas that [then-Cardinal] Ratzinger set out in the ’seventies on relations with the Churches of the East.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 12:28:02 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #185 on: January 01, 2011, 12:26:46 AM »


But knocking Him down is a crime against the State.   Wink

Did Vatican City State bring a charge against the woman?  Was any sentence imposed?  Does the Vatican have a prison for criminals?

Good questions (BTW, Happy MMXI).  Did the College of Cardinals try her (like their predecessors put a corpse on trial); find her guilty and sentenced her (since throwing people into rivers can be considered cruel and unusual punishment)?  If the Vatican is a sovereign nation with the Swiss Guards as an elite police force, I would think they have a judicial system and a correctional system like every other developed country.  After all, the head of state is infallible and only subject to election (after His death) by a select body of appointed Bishops less than 80 years of age....
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 12:53:45 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #186 on: January 01, 2011, 12:38:01 AM »

I think the "infallibility debate" is rather pointless, and you will not find that word used in the ancient Fathers or the liturgy.
Yes.  I haved mentioned this before.

The word "infallibility" is absent from Orthodox vocabulary.  It is pretty much meaningless for us.  Instead the Councils speak of being faithful to the Fathers, and the Fathers speak of being faithful to earlier Fathers, to the Scriptures, to the Tradition of the Church which flows down to us from the Apostolic era.  Therefore, imho, discussions on infallibility in the ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholics will ultimately turn out to be a casus irrealis since the concept is, and always has been, outside the Orthodox phronema.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 12:48:56 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #187 on: January 01, 2011, 12:44:43 AM »

Todd,
If you think that Rome is in error, and that the Eastern Orthodox are not, why are you "in communion with Rome" (I actually think you are out of communion with Rome) and not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox?

Something to think about.

For a while, I was in the same position until an Orthodox Priest told me to put aside the schizophrenia of trying to be a Roman Catholic (Eastern Catholic) and Eastern Orthodox at the same time. I did as he suggested, became a catechumen, and was eventually chrismated into the Holy Orthodox Church.  I found much peace of mind.


Happy New Year, Maria!
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #188 on: January 01, 2011, 12:53:49 AM »


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.

Another lesson for you on Forum protocal.  History is as ialmisry says it is.

Isa is an excellent researcher on topics that I have yet to see repudiated on this forum and on other fora that he posts.  He has helped me look closer at the creation of my own Orthodox Jurisdiction in the USA.  While I haven't changed my Jurisdiction because of the revelations, I can reconcile the history of my Jurisdiction to my faith in that I am not an apostate.   Smiley
I don't believe you are an apostate either, just to be clear.

The situation in North America calls direction, but for economia, not akrevia.  I've never consuled anyone to leave the GOA, nor would I. The closest I've done to that is ask those who weren't Greek or didn't speak it, who were leaving Orthodoxy over it, to tell them to try an English parish, typically OCA.  I go to GOA parishes frequently, and was at the EP's DL in Chicago, and kissed his hand, literally.

I took my sons this year only to St. Augustine, to the St. Photios shrine, but also to the New Smyrna ruins, although I know that the Greeks were in submission to the Vatican. It's still Greek history, and I like Greeks (yeah, I hide it well).
efcharisto for the kind words.

?

Is this explained better elsewhere?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #189 on: January 01, 2011, 01:27:28 AM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

Methinks the Latins are right.

No Eastern Catholic Patriarch presides over any Church with a higher ecclesiastical status than autonomous.

The Church of Rome is the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not equal to the Patriarchs.  He is their boss and superior.

This is clearly stated in the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only
has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by
which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the
office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always
united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire
Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the
Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of
exercising this function.

3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

...and several other canons.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #190 on: January 01, 2011, 04:14:53 AM »

In Reply #99, I provided evidence from Hebrews 7:7 in the North American Bible that there was precedent for Joab (the lesser) blessing King David (the greater)...

Well, if we recall Joab's story, he was killed in the altar of the Temple by orders from the Lord (via King Solomon) because Joab took matters into his own hands and killed Abner and Amasa (1 Kings 2:28-35).

<whistling>
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #191 on: January 01, 2011, 05:06:09 AM »

Quote from: Ialmisy
No, I stated the fact that it could not, consistently with papal claims, determine the Councils choice of pope.

This is the "fact" you stated.

Quote from: Ialmisy
Neither the Roman See nor the Avignon See determined the Council of Constance.

Quote from: Ialmisy
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.

State what your "charism" problem is succinctly and definitively, vis-a-vis the consecration of Bishops to the Roman See. Provide particular precedents from canon law. Nothing about the infallibility of the Pope prevents him from being consecrated.
 
Quote from: Ialmisry
Interesting all those rulers you mention. We are told that caesaropapism was an eastern thing.

Caesaropapism refers to the belief that the head of the state is in charge of religious affairs. I have no idea how you think it is relevant here.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.

The Popes of the Roman and Pisan lines cooperatively convened the Council of Constance, giving it full authority. The Popes of the Avignon line later recognized that it had been an authoritative council.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.

Make specific claims, not general allusions, please.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.:

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.

"Innocent played no direct role".

The west and east went in to schism until Chrysostom was restored to the diptychs. That Innocent I died a year before the schism ended is of no relevance.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.

Once again, Rome and the east went in to schism, and once again the schism ended with the east recognizing that Rome had been correct. Once again, The Pontiff got his way. That he died before this was done is irrelevant.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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."

A third time, east and west went in to schism. And a third time, of course, the west won the argument. Basil I the Macedonian recognized that Nicholas had been right all along and Ignatios, regarded as a Saint by both Catholic and Orthodox, was reinstated as the valid Patriarch until his death.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.

The Orthodox hold that infallibility inheres in the Church generally. What sacrament do you feel that that infallibility comes from?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 05:12:16 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #192 on: January 01, 2011, 05:36:02 AM »

The Orthodox hold that infallibility inheres in the Church generally.

No, they do not.  Some modern theologians such as Georges Florovsky developed this idea, probably because thoughts and speculation on such matters were sparked by the dogmatic definition of the Roman Catholics at Vatican I.

But the Church has no teaching on infallibility and indeed I cannot even think of a word for it in Russian.  The word pressed into service is "nepogreshimost" but that really conveys the idea of impeccability.  You see where the confusion comes in?

The Church knows that only God Himself is infallible and that He has promised us the Holy Spirit who will keep us in faithfulness to the teachings of Jesus Christ.  What more do we need to know? The Roman Catholic fixation on the two issues of  1) authority and  2) infallibility bemuses the Orthodox.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #193 on: January 01, 2011, 08:11:52 AM »


The Pope's authority to make dogmatic definitions was defined by the First Council of the Vatican, not any Pope.


The response to that is Yes and No!   Grin

These books will help explain:

"How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the politics of persuasion " by August Bernhard Hasler

"Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry" by Hans Kung.


Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #194 on: January 01, 2011, 01:04:23 PM »

I'm sorry, why do you feel that is "Both a yes and a no"? The Catholic Church divides its teaching two ways.

Ordinary Magisterium: This is the normal, fallible teaching authority of the Church.

Sacred Magisterium: This is the infallible teaching authority of the Church. Sacred Magisterium is further subdivided in two:

Extraordinary Magisterium: These are the pronouncements of Popes and ecumenical councils and such.

Universal Ordinary Magisterium: This is the closest one to the Orthodox position, as I understand it. Beliefs gradually come to be considered "infallible" over time because the whole Church accepts them.

The dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility by the First Council of the Vatican was an example of Sacred-Extraordinary Magisterium.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #195 on: January 01, 2011, 02:10:08 PM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

Methinks the Latins are right.

No Eastern Catholic Patriarch presides over any Church with a higher ecclesiastical status than autonomous.

The Church of Rome is the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not equal to the Patriarchs.  He is their boss and superior.

This is clearly stated in the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches

ET PUBLICE LATINE and officially in Latin!
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #196 on: January 01, 2011, 02:22:59 PM »

Quote
They can accept the primacy of the Pope as titular of the prima sedes and as last recourse. But not the praxis of centralism without real collegiality. If Rome wants to go ahead it should take up the formulas that [then-Cardinal] Ratzinger set out in the ’seventies on relations with the Churches of the East.
A good succinct statement on the matter.

It would be better for the Vatican if it pursued the policies and ideas of Card. Ratzinger on what to do with the National Bishop Conferences, rather than Pope Benedict's suppression of the title of Patriarch of the West.
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #197 on: January 01, 2011, 02:40:34 PM »


But knocking Him down is a crime against the State.   Wink

Did Vatican City State bring a charge against the woman?  Was any sentence imposed?  Does the Vatican have a prison for criminals?

Good questions (BTW, Happy MMXI).  Did the College of Cardinals try her (like their predecessors put a corpse on trial); find her guilty and sentenced her (since throwing people into rivers can be considered cruel and unusual punishment)?  If the Vatican is a sovereign nation with the Swiss Guards as an elite police force, I would think they have a judicial system and a correctional system like every other developed country.  After all, the head of state is infallible and only subject to election (after His death) by a select body of appointed Bishops less than 80 years of age....
the Lateran treaties provide a relationship with the Italian judiciary and penal system, although the Vatican has its own judiciary.  Mehmet Ali Agca was tried in Italian courts, for instance, and was incarcerated in Italy, and pardoned by the Italian president by the request of the sovereign of Vatican city.
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,444


WWW
« Reply #198 on: January 01, 2011, 03:18:49 PM »


But knocking Him down is a crime against the State.   Wink

Did Vatican City State bring a charge against the woman?  Was any sentence imposed?  Does the Vatican have a prison for criminals?

Good questions (BTW, Happy MMXI).  Did the College of Cardinals try her (like their predecessors put a corpse on trial); find her guilty and sentenced her (since throwing people into rivers can be considered cruel and unusual punishment)?  If the Vatican is a sovereign nation with the Swiss Guards as an elite police force, I would think they have a judicial system and a correctional system like every other developed country.  After all, the head of state is infallible and only subject to election (after His death) by a select body of appointed Bishops less than 80 years of age....
the Lateran treaties provide a relationship with the Italian judiciary and penal system, although the Vatican has its own judiciary.  Mehmet Ali Agca was tried in Italian courts, for instance, and was incarcerated in Italy, and pardoned by the Italian president by the request of the sovereign of Vatican city.

The Vatican paid the bill for Agca's incarceration.  I also found out that the Holy See is not a member of the UN ... Infallibility has its perks after all in that one man-made creation (Infallibility) hasn't yielded to another man-made creation (UN).   Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #199 on: January 01, 2011, 03:23:18 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisy
No, I stated the fact that it could not, consistently with papal claims, determine the Councils choice of pope.

This is the "fact" you stated.

Quote from: Ialmisy
Neither the Roman See nor the Avignon See determined the Council of Constance.
And they didn't: the Pisan popes called it, the Avignon popes did not take part, and the Roman pope abdicated at the reception of his delegates to it. It definition Haec Sancta
Quote
Legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4
cannot be squared with the claims of Pastor Aeternus, a fact reflected in that the line through which Pope Pius IX claimed his authority, i.e. Pope Gregory XII and Martin V, did not. You cannot base your authority on something you hold void.

Quote from: Ialmisy
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.
State what your "charism" problem is succinctly and definitively, vis-a-vis the consecration of Bishops to the Roman See. Provide particular precedents from canon law. Nothing about the infallibility of the Pope prevents him from being consecrated.
There is no consecration for pope. Which is the problem.

Someone "larkig episcopal character" can be elected pope.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=pope+episcopal+character&source=bl&ots=GIaJRBGr2i&sig=jx0zp4y_8IATmZkX0F3xQAUuoLc&hl=en&ei=l3wfTaauDKnonQf72ti2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pope%20episcopal%20character&f=false
That can have dire consequences, as the papacy of Pope Adrian V, who was never the bishop of anything, let alone of Rome.
World's biggest secret ... Apostolic Succession in Roman Catholic Church broken for 734 years due to the death of a non-Bishop who was elected Pope.

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned.  
Yes, a few discrepancies.
The encyclopedia brittanica also says that Adrian V died before he was ordained a priest or consecrated.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/6517/Adrian-V
So that would be an example of a Roman Catholic Pope who was neither a priest nor a bishop?

Could this "break" in succession have indirectly led to Papal Infallibility since an Infallible Pope could always go back and restore His own line of succession or even change the rules for electing future Popes?  1276 was just 222 years after the Great Schism.
The problem is, how would they get a valid pope?
Quote
He annulled the rigid enactments of Gregory X relating to the papal conclaves, but died before substituting milder ones
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01159a.htm
Quote
In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated.

The stringency of these regulations at once aroused opposition; yet the first elections held in conclave proved that the principle was right. The first conclave lasted only a day and the next but seven days. Unfortunately there were three popes in the very year succeeding the death of Gregory X (1276). The second, Adrian V, did not live long enough to incorporate in an authoritative act his openly expressed opinion of the conclave. Pope John XX lived only long enough to suspend officially the "Ubi Periculum". Immediately the protracted elections recommenced. In the eighteen years intervening between the suspension of the law of the conclave in 1276 and its resumption in 1294 there were several vacancies of from six to nine months; that which preceded the election of Celestine V lasted two years and nine months. About the only notable act of the latter pope was to restore the conclave. Boniface VIII confirmed the action of his predecessor and ordered the "Ubi Periculum" of Gregory X to be incorporated in the canon law (c. 3, in VI°, I, 6), since which time all papal elections have taken place in conclave
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm
The 'Ubi Periculum' remained the law of the conclave untill 1963, but there would be question, since Pope Gregory X's successors repudiated it, how was any one canonically elected pope who could restore it.

That has nothing to do with Apostolic succession, though.  Any synod of Orthodox bishops with canonical jurisdiction can consecrate a bishop or even restore a Church, as was done for instance in Albania after the fall of communism. Bishop Siluan, sent by the Romanian Church, is the Orthdoox bihsop of Rome.

It is the claims of Ultramontanism and treating an office of "pope" as a super-order of the hierarchy that has painted them in the corner.  Since it wasn't founed by the Apostles, it has not Apostolic succession, as opposed to the see of Rome.

Now I know that there are those who will hide behind the argument that Pope Adrian didn't have supreme power yet, not yet being consecrated, so he could not annul Pope Gregory's Bulll. But they have already painted themselves into a corner, after arguing that no consecration is connected with the office of pope. The bishops accepted Pope Adrian's annullment.  The Church makes concordants with non-bishops (e.g. rulers) all the time for the governance of the Church. And that is what you all are claiming for the papacy.
 
sorry, the duties of real life call. I'll continue later, Lord willing.

Btw everyone, Happy New Year! Many Years!
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
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,125


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #200 on: January 01, 2011, 03:46:20 PM »

Todd,
If you think that Rome is in error, and that the Eastern Orthodox are not, why are you "in communion with Rome" (I actually think you are out of communion with Rome) and not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox?

Something to think about.

For a while, I was in the same position until an Orthodox Priest told me to put aside the schizophrenia of trying to be a Roman Catholic (Eastern Catholic) and Eastern Orthodox at the same time. I did as he suggested, became a catechumen, and was eventually chrismated into the Holy Orthodox Church.  I found much peace of mind.


Happy New Year, Maria!

Thank you, Father.

Happy New Year to you too.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #201 on: January 01, 2011, 03:53:14 PM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

Methinks the Latins are right.

No Eastern Catholic Patriarch presides over any Church with a higher ecclesiastical status than autonomous.

The Church of Rome is the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not equal to the Patriarchs.  He is their boss and superior.

This is clearly stated in the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only
has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by
which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the
office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always
united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire
Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the
Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of
exercising this function.

3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

...and several other canons.
The Melkite Patriarch has said on several occasions that the CCEO does not represent an authentic Eastern Christian approach to the canonical tradition of the first millennium, which is why the CCEO needs to be changed.

Let us not forget that even Cardinal Kasper spoke of the CCEO is an intermediate document that would have to be abandoned should the Eastern Orthodox Churches enter into communion with Rome, for as he put it:  ". . . the apostolic constitution enforcing the Eastern Code of Canon Law stated that its regulations were valid only in the intermediate term, that is, until full reconciliation with the Eastern Churches not in full communion. Thus, the model of the exercise of primacy we have in the Eastern Catholic Churches is not necessarily the model for the future reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches."

I admit that Rome often mistreats the Eastern Catholic Churches, and that she does not take our ability to govern ourselves seriously, but she knows that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will never accept that kind of situation.  The Orthodox should simply remain firm in their convictions and push Rome back to a position that conforms to what existed during the first millennium.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #202 on: January 01, 2011, 04:00:26 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
And they didn't: the Pisan popes called it, the Avignon popes did not take part, and the Roman pope abdicated at the reception of his delegates to it. It definition Haec Sancta cannot be squared with the claims of Pastor Aeternus, a fact reflected in that the line through which Pope Pius IX claimed his authority, i.e. Pope Gregory XII and Martin V, did not. You cannot base your authority on something you hold void.

To my knowledge Haec Sancta was never officially ratified by Martin V, and therefore isn't binding.

Quote
There is no consecration for pope. Which is the problem.

Someone "larkig episcopal character" can be elected pope.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=pope+episcopal+character&source=bl&ots=GIaJRBGr2i&sig=jx0zp4y_8IATmZkX0F3xQAUuoLc&hl=en&ei=l3wfTaauDKnonQf72ti2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pope%20episcopal%20character&f=false
That can have dire consequences, as the papacy of Pope Adrian V, who was never the bishop of anything, let alone of Rome.
World's biggest secret ... Apostolic Succession in Roman Catholic Church broken for 734 years due to the death of a non-Bishop who was elected Pope.

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 
Yes, a few discrepancies.
The encyclopedia brittanica also says that Adrian V died before he was ordained a priest or consecrated.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/6517/Adrian-V
So that would be an example of a Roman Catholic Pope who was neither a priest nor a bishop?

Could this "break" in succession have indirectly led to Papal Infallibility since an Infallible Pope could always go back and restore His own line of succession or even change the rules for electing future Popes?  1276 was just 222 years after the Great Schism.
The problem is, how would they get a valid pope?
Quote
He annulled the rigid enactments of Gregory X relating to the papal conclaves, but died before substituting milder ones
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01159a.htm
Quote
In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated.

The stringency of these regulations at once aroused opposition; yet the first elections held in conclave proved that the principle was right. The first conclave lasted only a day and the next but seven days. Unfortunately there were three popes in the very year succeeding the death of Gregory X (1276). The second, Adrian V, did not live long enough to incorporate in an authoritative act his openly expressed opinion of the conclave. Pope John XX lived only long enough to suspend officially the "Ubi Periculum". Immediately the protracted elections recommenced. In the eighteen years intervening between the suspension of the law of the conclave in 1276 and its resumption in 1294 there were several vacancies of from six to nine months; that which preceded the election of Celestine V lasted two years and nine months. About the only notable act of the latter pope was to restore the conclave. Boniface VIII confirmed the action of his predecessor and ordered the "Ubi Periculum" of Gregory X to be incorporated in the canon law (c. 3, in VI°, I, 6), since which time all papal elections have taken place in conclave
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm
The 'Ubi Periculum' remained the law of the conclave untill 1963, but there would be question, since Pope Gregory X's successors repudiated it, how was any one canonically elected pope who could restore it.

That has nothing to do with Apostolic succession, though.  Any synod of Orthodox bishops with canonical jurisdiction can consecrate a bishop or even restore a Church, as was done for instance in Albania after the fall of communism. Bishop Siluan, sent by the Romanian Church, is the Orthdoox bihsop of Rome.

It is the claims of Ultramontanism and treating an office of "pope" as a super-order of the hierarchy that has painted them in the corner.  Since it wasn't founed by the Apostles, it has not Apostolic succession, as opposed to the see of Rome.

Now I know that there are those who will hide behind the argument that Pope Adrian didn't have supreme power yet, not yet being consecrated, so he could not annul Pope Gregory's Bulll. But they have already painted themselves into a corner, after arguing that no consecration is connected with the office of pope. The bishops accepted Pope Adrian's annullment.  The Church makes concordants with non-bishops (e.g. rulers) all the time for the governance of the Church. And that is what you all are claiming for the papacy.
 
sorry, the duties of real life call. I'll continue later, Lord willing.

Btw everyone, Happy New Year! Many Years!

One who is elected Pope but is not a Bishop is consecrated Bishop by the Dean of the College of Cardinals before taking office. There is nothing to "hide behind", Adrian V was elected but never became Pope. If the later Church chose to sustain the annulment of Adrian V, then they chose to do so on their own authority.

Also this is a problem only for someone who goes in to the discussion with a lawyerly mindset looking for an excuse to find such a problem. Oh no, the Church accepted the rulings of a Pope-elect who hadn't been consecrated yet. Big deal.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 04:11:22 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #203 on: January 01, 2011, 05:13:53 PM »

Thomist, it seems lawyerly because EOs are extremely legalistic in their understanding of Catholic theology and history.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #204 on: January 01, 2011, 05:25:53 PM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

Methinks the Latins are right.

No Eastern Catholic Patriarch presides over any Church with a higher ecclesiastical status than autonomous.

The Church of Rome is the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not equal to the Patriarchs.  He is their boss and superior.

This is clearly stated in the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only
has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by
which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the
office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always
united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire
Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the
Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of
exercising this function.

3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

...and several other canons.

The Melkite Patriarch has said on several occasions that the CCEO does not represent an authentic Eastern Christian approach to the canonical tradition of the first millennium,.


Don't we have to love the feisty Melkites!!  The Vatican spends thousands of dollars and man  hours creating the definitive "Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches" and the Melkites simply say: " No thanks!  This is false to our tradition."

Their refusal to accept Canon Law and in particular the position of the Pope as Supreme Commander, puts the Pope and the Vatican in a difficult position.  If the Vatican insists on the canonical prerogatives of the Pope as supreme canonical authority for the Melkites they risk pushing the Melkites out of the Catholic Church.  They could unite with the Orthodox or become independent.  Either way it would be  a dangerous situation for Rome and a dangerous example to other Eastern Catholic Churches. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #205 on: January 01, 2011, 05:26:44 PM »

Thomist, it seems lawyerly because EOs are extremely legalistic in their understanding of Catholic theology and history.
Not legalistic in our understanding of Catholic theology and history.

As for the Vatican's theology and history, it comes with the subject matter.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #206 on: January 01, 2011, 05:28:05 PM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

Methinks the Latins are right.

No Eastern Catholic Patriarch presides over any Church with a higher ecclesiastical status than autonomous.

The Church of Rome is the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not equal to the Patriarchs.  He is their boss and superior.

This is clearly stated in the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches

ET PUBLICE LATINE and officially in Latin!

Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know. 

Perhaps you should apply to the Vatican for a special certificate in Instantaneous Knowledge of Esoteric Subjects.  I'll bet you could get a pretty certificate to hang on your respective walls. laugh
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #207 on: January 01, 2011, 05:28:05 PM »

I admit that Rome often mistreats the Eastern Catholic Churches, and that she does not take our ability to govern ourselves seriously, but she knows that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will never accept that kind of situation.  The Orthodox should simply remain firm in their convictions and push Rome back to a position that conforms to what existed during the first millennium.

Or even more simply allow both sides to remain firm and come to some immediate agreement on governance.

Of course then we'd not be able to pontificate on our polarities...but that might leave more time for prayer  laugh...perish the proposition!!

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #208 on: January 01, 2011, 05:33:36 PM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

Methinks the Latins are right.

No Eastern Catholic Patriarch presides over any Church with a higher ecclesiastical status than autonomous.

The Church of Rome is the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not equal to the Patriarchs.  He is their boss and superior.

This is clearly stated in the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office
(munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the
Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the
college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire
Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he
enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in
the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Canon 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only
has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of
ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by
which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops
possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the
office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always
united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire
Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the
Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of
exercising this function.

3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

...and several other canons.

The Melkite Patriarch has said on several occasions that the CCEO does not represent an authentic Eastern Christian approach to the canonical tradition of the first millennium,.


Don't we have to love the feisty Melkites!!  The Vatican spends thousands of dollars and man  hours creating the definitive "Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches" and the Melkites simply say: " No thanks!  This is false to our tradition."

Their refusal to accept Canon Law and in particular the position of the Pope as Supreme Commander, puts the Pope and the Vatican in a difficult position.  If the Vatican insists on the canonical prerogatives of the Pope as supreme canonical authority for the Melkites they risk pushing the Melkites out of the Catholic Church.  They could unite with the Orthodox or become independent.  Either way it would be  a dangerous situation for Rome and a dangerous example to other Eastern Catholic Churches.  
The odd thing is that the Melkite example is perhaps the one case where the submission was agreed to willingly. Of course, because they didn't do so at sword point might explain how the Melkites aren't so submissive.

I would doubt, given the relations with the Orthodox of Antioch, that they would become independent. Simply no reason: many of us see the schism as the two Rome dragging us into their squabbles.

In any case, it gives the Ultramontanists existential angst, or rather, indigestion.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 05:41:55 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #209 on: January 01, 2011, 05:46:09 PM »

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch reminded his interlocutor at 30 Days magazine that he was not subject to the pope, but was rather in communion with him.  Latins often confuse these two things.

Methinks the Latins are right.

No Eastern Catholic Patriarch presides over any Church with a higher ecclesiastical status than autonomous.

The Church of Rome is the only autocephalous Church in the Catholic Church.  The Pope is not equal to the Patriarchs.  He is their boss and superior.

This is clearly stated in the Canon Law of the Eastern Churches

ET PUBLICE LATINE and officially in Latin!

Dear Professors,

I see you and Todd are experts in Catholic Canon Law as well...It is all so clear in black and white, you know.


Of course not. Lawyers are involved.

Quote
Perhaps you should apply to the Vatican for a special certificate in Instantaneous Knowledge of Esoteric Subjects.  I'll bet you could get a pretty certificate to hang on your respective walls. laugh
I don't even keep my diploma from the University of Chicago on the wall. Not much for that sort of thing I guess.
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #210 on: January 01, 2011, 06:53:27 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
And they didn't: the Pisan popes called it, the Avignon popes did not take part, and the Roman pope abdicated at the reception of his delegates to it. It definition Haec Sancta cannot be squared with the claims of Pastor Aeternus, a fact reflected in that the line through which Pope Pius IX claimed his authority, i.e. Pope Gregory XII and Martin V, did not. You cannot base your authority on something you hold void.

To my knowledge Haec Sancta was never officially ratified by Martin V,

I posted as much.

Quote
and therefore isn't binding.

That is like taking office of the President of the United States and turning around and saying the that the Electoral College that elected you is without authority, and the US Constitution not binding, yet expecting one's executive orders to be obeyed, one's command of the US Armed forces to be acknowleged, and one's signing and vetoing of bills to have legal consequences. What is the source of your authority?

If Constance was without authority to issue Haec Sancta, it was without authority to elect Martin pope. Its Acts, and the submission of Pope John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII to it, make that clear.


Quote from: Ialmisry
There is no consecration for pope. Which is the problem.

Someone "larkig episcopal character" can be elected pope.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=pope+episcopal+character&source=bl&ots=GIaJRBGr2i&sig=jx0zp4y_8IATmZkX0F3xQAUuoLc&hl=en&ei=l3wfTaauDKnonQf72ti2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pope%20episcopal%20character&f=false
That can have dire consequences, as the papacy of Pope Adrian V, who was never the bishop of anything, let alone of Rome.

Now I know that there are those who will hide behind the argument that Pope Adrian didn't have supreme power yet, not yet being consecrated, so he could not annul Pope Gregory's Bulll. But they have already painted themselves into a corner, after arguing that no consecration is connected with the office of pope. The bishops accepted Pope Adrian's annullment.  The Church makes concordants with non-bishops (e.g. rulers) all the time for the governance of the Church. And that is what you all are claiming for the papacy.

One who is elected Pope but is not a Bishop is consecrated Bishop by the Dean of the College of Cardinals before taking office.

Yes, that is the canon, now, but was not followed in the case of Pope Adrian V.

There is nothing to "hide behind", Adrian V was elected but never became Pope.
The Annuario Pontificio lists him, evidently disagreeing.

and the "magisterium" agrees:
Quote
The List of Popes
187. Adrian V (1276)
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

If the later Church chose to sustain the annulment of Adrian V, then they chose to do so on their own authority.

You're begging the question: they did that the pope's authority, not theirs.

And why couldn't Pope Adrian V not exercise papal authority? Because he "lacked an episcopal character"? LOL. One of the favorite examples cited for papal supremacy is the deacon Hilary at the council of Ephesus II: him yelling "contradicetur" "You are contradicted"  We are told that thereby, in the name of the Pope of Rome, the actions of all those bishops were annulled.
Quote
the papal legate Hilary (later pope), who by his Contradicitur annulled the decisions of the council
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06098c.htm
If a mere deacon, acting as legate of the Pope, can act on that to annull the decisions of bishops in purported ecumenical council, why can't the pope elect exercise his own powers?

Again, since we are told again and again that the papacy is an office, not an order, then the fact that Pope Adrian V had not yet been consecrated into holy orders should have no bearing, as he had already accepted the office.

Also this is a problem only for someone who goes in to the discussion with a lawyerly mindset looking for an excuse to find such a problem.

I don't have to look for a problem.  Ultramontanism presents them quite clearly.

Oh no, the Church accepted the rulings of a Pope-elect who hadn't been consecrated yet. Big deal.
The big deal is that he abolished the procedures for electing a successor, without giving the means to get a successor.  The epitomy of a constitutional crisis of succession.
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #211 on: January 01, 2011, 07:38:33 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
Interesting all those rulers you mention. We are told that caesaropapism was an eastern thing.
Caesaropapism refers to the belief that the head of the state is in charge of religious affairs. I have no idea how you think it is relevant here.

The Ultramontanists, ever more holier than thou, ever make the claim that the Orthodoxy "having no visible head," fell prey to the secular powers (such polemicists for the Vatican never complain about the Emperors trying to drag the Orhtodox into submission at Lyons or Florence, and indeed praise the "unions" forced by the Polish-Lithuanian King and the Habstburg Kaiser onto the Orthodox) and rendered unto Caesar what was God's. Rather rich from supporters for a theocracy which bears the title of the old pagan Roman kings as head of the state cult. As if they never heard of the "Donation of Constantine," the founding document for the Sovereign of the State of Vatican City in charge as Supreme Pontiff of the religious affairs of the Universal Church.

Given the involvement of the Caesars at Constance and the voting of bishops in national blocks, as you documented, the use of placet, exequator, regium placet, the secular confirmation of papal elections, the secular veto should put to rest such claims  of Caesaropapism as distinguishing Orthodoxy from the Vatican.

Real life calls again.  Lord willing, I'll pick up.

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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #212 on: January 01, 2011, 07:45:56 PM »

Given the involvement of the Caesars at Constance and the voting of bishops in national blocks, as you documented, the use of placet, exequator, regium placet, the secular confirmation of papal elections, the secular veto should put to rest such claims  of Caesaropapism as distinguishing Orthodoxy from the Vatican.

For a quick look at the submission of the Bishops of Rome to the secular powers for much of Rome's Christian history, please see message 6 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29465.msg465634.html#msg465634
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #213 on: January 01, 2011, 08:54:40 PM »

Given the involvement of the Caesars at Constance and the voting of bishops in national blocks, as you documented, the use of placet, exequator, regium placet, the secular confirmation of papal elections, the secular veto should put to rest such claims  of Caesaropapism as distinguishing Orthodoxy from the Vatican.

For a quick look at the submission of the Bishops of Rome to the secular powers for much of Rome's Christian history, please see message 6 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29465.msg465634.html#msg465634
Thanks for the reminder, Father:

Right up until the early 20th century the secular authority was preserved in papal elections.  France and Spain and Austro-Hungaria had the right to veto a papal election.  The right was last used by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor in 1905 to veto the election of Cardinal Rampolla.   The Cardinals were not happy about this but in the end they were obliged to obey the Emperor and Rampolla was not allowed to become Pope.  In his stead the Cardinals elected the man who became Pope Pius X.

But St. Pius X, as pope, was not obliged to obey. He formally abolished that custom (never enumerated law but a custom) and made cardinals swear an oath that they would not be influenced by secular authorities on pain of excommunication.

Of course, popes have been chosen through various ways in history. Right now we have the cardinal conclaves.

But once the pope becomes pope, he is supreme in spiritual matters, even over emperors.


So we can blame Pope Leo IX or Benedict VIII for prying off the doors of St. Peter the silver panels with the unadulterated Creed, hammered on their by Pope Leo III, and not Emperor Henry II, who had the filioque stuck in for his coronation at Rome?

And of course then the supreme pontiff would free those bishops forced by the secular autorities to sign "union" agreements.

Even in the most Erastian Orthodox system, the Holy Governing Synod of Russia, the secular authorities did not dictate dogma on Faith and morals, i.e. the areas where your supreme pontiff claims to be infallible.
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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #214 on: January 01, 2011, 09:19:16 PM »

I admit that Rome often mistreats the Eastern Catholic Churches, and that she does not take our ability to govern ourselves seriously, but she knows that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will never accept that kind of situation.  The Orthodox should simply remain firm in their convictions and push Rome back to a position that conforms to what existed during the first millennium.

Or even more simply allow both sides to remain firm and come to some immediate agreement on governance.

Of course then we'd not be able to pontificate on our polarities...but that might leave more time for prayer  laugh...perish the proposition!!

M.
The Melkite Catholic Church would not object to the restoration of communion without resolving all the problems created by the evolved ecclesiology of the Roman Church, but Rome rejects that approach (see Rome's rejection of the Zoghby Initiative).
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #215 on: January 02, 2011, 12:18:13 AM »

The quote function is screwing up so I'm gonna have to reply without quoting.

-Haec Sancta. It is from session five of the Council. The first five sessions were illicit:

Quote
This decree, however, is not considered valid by the Catholic Church, since it was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors, and was passed by the Council in a session before his confirmation. The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an invalid and illicit assembly of Bishops, gathered under the authority of Emperor Sigismund and Antipope John XXIII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_constance#Decrees_and_doctrinal_status

-Adrian V: Even if your argument were correct (It isn't) your example would still fail. In order to become Pope, one must be invested with the Pallium. Adrian was not. He is generally listed as a courtesy:

Quote
Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_V

On the issue of "constitutional crisis" it is not crisis whatsoever. The means for electing a Pope do not need to be set by a Pope. Indeed, the original basis of the current means was not set by any Pope, but by the Second Council of Lyon.

You appear to have diverted the discussion away from the Meletian, Acacian, and Photian schisms and the roles played in them by Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, and Nicholas I. Care to give your thoughts on them?

On the issue of "Caesaropapism" - Okay? Noted, I guess? Not sure how the fact that some Catholics often accuse the Orthodox of Caesaropapism relates to any of our arguments here.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 12:34:22 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #216 on: January 02, 2011, 12:47:36 AM »

I don't even keep my diploma from the University of Chicago on the wall. Not much for that sort of thing I guess.

Not even on your office wall?  What do you teach?  History?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #217 on: January 02, 2011, 12:47:37 AM »


The big deal is that he abolished the procedures for electing a successor, without giving the means to get a successor.  The epitomy of a constitutional crisis of succession.

That's not a big deal, Professor...nor is it an "epitomy"

Maybe you are a linguist and not an historian.

The big deal is that there is nothing in this putative discussion of your's here that has anything to do with primacy OR infallibility.

Whatever Adrian V did was procedural and was managed by his successors.  These are earthly considerations and the Cardinals had every power to make the necessary procedural arrangements in the absence of Adrian V.

You have offered NOTHING here by way of substance in the discussion of papal infallibility.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #218 on: January 02, 2011, 01:32:45 AM »

The quote function is screwing up so I'm gonna have to reply without quoting.

-Haec Sancta. It is from session five of the Council. The first five sessions were illicit:
Oh?
Quote
Session 12—29 May 1415

Decree stating that the process for electing a pope, if the see happens to be vacant, may not begin without the council's express consent [27]

This most holy general synod of Constance, representing the catholic church, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, for the eradication of the present schism and errors, for bringing about the reform of the church in head and members, and in order that the unity of the church may be obtained more easily, quickly and freely, pronounces, determines, decrees and ordains that if it happens that the apostolic see becomes vacant, by whatever means this may happen, then the process of electing the next supreme pontiff may not begin without the deliberation and consent of this sacred general council. If the contrary is done then it is by this very fact, by the authority of the said sacred council, null and void. Nobody may accept anyone elected to the papacy in defiance of this decree, nor in any way adhere to or obey him as pope, under pain of eternal damnation and of becoming a supporter of the said schism. Those who make the election in such a case, as well as the person elected, if he consents, and those who adhere to him, are to be punished in the forms prescribed by this sacred council. The said holy synod, moreover, for the good of the church's unity, suspends all positive laws, even those promulgated in general councils, and their statutes, ordinances, customs and privileges, by whomsoever they may have been granted, and penalties promulgated against any persons, insofar as these may in any way impede the effect of this decree.

Sentence deposing pope John XXIII

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, having invoked Christ's name and holding God alone before its eyes, having seen the articles drawn up and presented in this case against the lord pope John XXIII, the proofs brought forward, his spontaneous submission and the whole process of the case, and having deliberated maturely on them, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence which it commits to writing: that the departure of the aforesaid lord pope John XXIII from this city of Constance and from this sacred general council, secretly and at a suspicious hour of the night, in disguised and indecent dress, was and is unlawful, notoriously scandalous to God's church and to this council, disturbing and damaging for the church's peace and unity, supportive of this long-standing schism, and at variance with the vow, promise and oath made by the said lord pope John to God, to the church and to this sacred council; that the said lord pope John has been and is a notorious simoniac, a notorious destroyer of the goods and rights not only of the Roman church but also of other churches and of many pious places, and an evil administrator and dispenser of the church's spiritualities and temporalities; that he has notoriously scandalised God's church and the Christian people by his detestable and dishonest life and morals, both before his promotion to the papacy and afterwards until the present time, that by the above he has scandalised and is scandalising in a notorious fashion God's church and the Christian people; that after due and charitable warnings, frequently reiterated to him, he obstinately persevered in the aforesaid evils and thereby rendered himself notoriously incorrigible; and that on account of the above and other crimes drawn from and contained in the said process against him, he should be deprived of and deposed from, as an unworthy, useless and damnable person, the papacy and all its spiritual and temporal administration. The said holy synod does now remove, deprive and depose him. It declares each and every Christian, of whatever state, dignity or condition, to be absolved from obedience, fidelity and oaths to him. It forbids all Christians henceforth to recognise him as pope, now that as mentioned he has been deposed from the papacy, or to call him pope, or to adhere to or in any way to obey him as pope. The said holy synod, moreover, from certain knowledge and its fullness of power, supplies for all and singular defects that may have occurred in the above-mentioned procedures or in any one of them. It condemns the said person, by this same sentence, to stay and remain in a good and suitable place, in the name of this sacred general council, in the safe custody of the most serene prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, etc., and most devoted advocate and defender of the universal church, as long as it seems to the said general council to be for the good of the unity of God's church that he should be so condemned. The said council reserves the right to declare and inflict other punishments that should be imposed for the said crimes and faults in accordance with canonical sanctions, according as the rigour of justice or the counsel of mercy may advise.

Decree to the effect that none of the three contenders for the papacy may be re-elected as pope

The said holy synod decrees, determines and ordains for the good of unity in God's church that neither the lord Baldassare de Cossa, recently John XXIII, nor Angelo Correr nor Peter de Luna, called Gregory XII and Benedict XIII by their respective obediences, shall ever be re-elected as pope. If the contrary happens, it is by this very fact null and void. Nobody, of whatever dignity or pre-eminence even if he be emperor, king, cardinal or pontiff, may ever adhere to or obey them or any one of them, contrary to this decree, under pain of eternal damnation and of being a supporter of the said schism. Let those who presume to the contrary, if there are any in the future, also be firmly proceeded against in other ways, even by invoking the secular arm.

Session 14—4 July 1415 [29]

Uniting of the followers of pope Gregory XII and of the former pope John XXIII, now that both men have abdicated

In order that the reunion of the church may be possible and that a beginning may be made which is fitting and pleasing to God, since the most important part of any matter is its beginning, and in order that the two obediences—namely the one claiming that the lord John XXIII was formerly pope and the other claiming that the lord Gregory XII is pope—may be united together under Christ as head, this most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit and representing the catholic church, accepts in all matters the convoking, authorising, approving and confirming that is now being made in the name of the lord who is called Gregory XII by those obedient to him, insofar as it seems to pertain to him to do this, since the certainty obtained by taking a precaution harms nobody and benefits all, and it decrees and declares that the aforesaid two obediences are joined and united in the one body of our lord Jesus Christ and of this sacred universal general council, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.

Decree stating that the election of the Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner and form to be laid down by the sacred council, and that the council shall not be dissolved until the election of the next Roman pontiff has been made

The most holy general synod of Constance, etc., enacts, pronounces, ordains and decrees, in order that God's holy church may be provided for better, more genuinely and more securely, that the next election of the future Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner, form, place, time and way that shall be decided upon by the sacred council; that the same council can and may henceforth declare fit, accept and designate, in the manner and form that then seems suitable, any persons for the purposes of this election, whether by active or by passive voice, of whatever state or obedience they are or may have been, and any other ecclesiastical acts and all other suitable things, notwithstanding any proceedings, penalties or sentences; and that the sacred council shall not be dissolved until the said election has been held. The said holy synod therefore exhorts and requires the most victorious prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, as the church's devoted advocate and as the sacred council's defender and protector, to direct all his efforts to this end and to promise on his royal word that he wishes to do this and to order letters of his majesty to be made out for this purpose.

The council approves Gregory XII's resignation

The most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal catholic church, accepts, approves and commends, in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, the cession renunciation and resignation made on behalf of the lord who was called Gregory XII in his obedience, by the magnificent and powerful lord Charles Malatesta. here present, his irrevocable procurator for this business, of the right, title and possession that he had, or may have had, in regard to the papacy.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4
That leaves no authority to a pope depending on his election by the Council of Constance to declare its acts "illicit." If "Pope" Martin V thought the Councils Acts-and the Council makes no distinction between its Acts Sessions-then he should not have accepted election by them.

Quote
This decree, however, is not considered valid by the Catholic Church, since it was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors, and was passed by the Council in a session before his confirmation. The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an invalid and illicit assembly of Bishops, gathered under the authority of Emperor Sigismund and Antipope John XXIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_constance#Decrees_and_doctrinal_status

Rather intereting catch 22 you got there:if the decree is not valid, then the act of electing Martin "Pope," which the Council predicates on its earlier acts, must be rejected as void as well. And "Pope" Gregory should not abdicated to Council,which had already issued Haec Sancta.  btw, when did those Popes depending on the Council of Constance for their legitimacy declare its acts illicit.

-Adrian V: Even if your argument were correct (It isn't) your example would still fail. In order to become Pope, one must be invested with the Pallium.
There was evidently no pallium  in the early centuries:"According to the "Liber Pontificalis", it was first used in the first half of the fourth century."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htm
Are you saying that none of the first 33 "popes" were popes? Then you have bigger problems than first thought.

Are you sedevantist, saying that because the last three  popes were not coronated, that they were not popes?

The cardinals swore loyalty to Pope Benedict of the Vatican right after his election. They did not wait until his inaugral mass.

Again,the Ultramontanist claims made for deacons like Hilary, combined with this insistence that the papacy is not an order, pulls the rug under the "lack of episcopal character" as an excuse.

Adrian was not. He is generally listed as a courtesy:
Quote
Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_V

Pope Adrian VI is too kind. He was papal enough to annull his predecessor's bull, and the bishops under him accepted that.

On the issue of "constitutional crisis" it is not crisis whatsoever. The means for electing a Pope do not need to be set by a Pope. Indeed, the original basis of the current means was not set by any Pope, but by the Second Council of Lyon.

When a Pope lays down a constitution, like Pope Gregory X did, and another annulls it, as Pope Adrian V did, it's big deal.  What you argue would be like insisting that John McCain is the Vice President of the United States, since he got the next highest votes, as we are free to ignore the XII Amendment.

You appear to have diverted the discussion away from the Meletian, Acacian, and Photian schisms and the roles played in them by Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, and Nicholas I.
no. Fatherhood, sonship and Vespers called.  I do have priorities.

Care to give your thoughts on them?
Sure do, but I have to catch up on sleep now. Lord willing tommorrow.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 01:36:00 AM 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #219 on: January 02, 2011, 01:37:14 AM »

I don't even keep my diploma from the University of Chicago on the wall. Not much for that sort of thing I guess.

Not even on your office wall?  What do you teach?  History?
No. Never even on the office wall.
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #220 on: January 02, 2011, 01:44:24 AM »


The big deal is that he abolished the procedures for electing a successor, without giving the means to get a successor.  The epitomy of a constitutional crisis of succession.

That's not a big deal, Professor...nor is it an "epitomy"

Maybe you are a linguist and not an historian.

The big deal is that there is nothing in this putative discussion of your's here that has anything to do with primacy OR infallibility.
I was thinking of moving responses to more appropriate threads, but didn't have the time

Quote
Whatever Adrian V did was procedural and was managed by his successors.  These are earthly considerations and the Cardinals had every power to make the necessary procedural arrangements in the absence of Adrian V.
According to your present code of canon law, your present "dogmatic constitution," and the practice and theory underlying both stretching back to before Pope Adrian V,no, the cardinals did not.  Remember "can do nothing without their head."

Quote
You have offered NOTHING here by way of substance in the discussion of papal infallibility.
Are you sure you weren't a Hindu in another life, with this fondness for mantras.
So don't respond.  Just keep repeating what is true.Mary
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #221 on: January 02, 2011, 10:49:32 AM »

The quote function is screwing up so I'm gonna have to reply without quoting.

-Haec Sancta. It is from session five of the Council. The first five sessions were illicit:
Oh?
Quote
Session 12—29 May 1415

Decree stating that the process for electing a pope, if the see happens to be vacant, may not begin without the council's express consent [27]

This most holy general synod of Constance, representing the catholic church, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, for the eradication of the present schism and errors, for bringing about the reform of the church in head and members, and in order that the unity of the church may be obtained more easily, quickly and freely, pronounces, determines, decrees and ordains that if it happens that the apostolic see becomes vacant, by whatever means this may happen, then the process of electing the next supreme pontiff may not begin without the deliberation and consent of this sacred general council. If the contrary is done then it is by this very fact, by the authority of the said sacred council, null and void. Nobody may accept anyone elected to the papacy in defiance of this decree, nor in any way adhere to or obey him as pope, under pain of eternal damnation and of becoming a supporter of the said schism. Those who make the election in such a case, as well as the person elected, if he consents, and those who adhere to him, are to be punished in the forms prescribed by this sacred council. The said holy synod, moreover, for the good of the church's unity, suspends all positive laws, even those promulgated in general councils, and their statutes, ordinances, customs and privileges, by whomsoever they may have been granted, and penalties promulgated against any persons, insofar as these may in any way impede the effect of this decree.

Sentence deposing pope John XXIII

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, having invoked Christ's name and holding God alone before its eyes, having seen the articles drawn up and presented in this case against the lord pope John XXIII, the proofs brought forward, his spontaneous submission and the whole process of the case, and having deliberated maturely on them, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence which it commits to writing: that the departure of the aforesaid lord pope John XXIII from this city of Constance and from this sacred general council, secretly and at a suspicious hour of the night, in disguised and indecent dress, was and is unlawful, notoriously scandalous to God's church and to this council, disturbing and damaging for the church's peace and unity, supportive of this long-standing schism, and at variance with the vow, promise and oath made by the said lord pope John to God, to the church and to this sacred council; that the said lord pope John has been and is a notorious simoniac, a notorious destroyer of the goods and rights not only of the Roman church but also of other churches and of many pious places, and an evil administrator and dispenser of the church's spiritualities and temporalities; that he has notoriously scandalised God's church and the Christian people by his detestable and dishonest life and morals, both before his promotion to the papacy and afterwards until the present time, that by the above he has scandalised and is scandalising in a notorious fashion God's church and the Christian people; that after due and charitable warnings, frequently reiterated to him, he obstinately persevered in the aforesaid evils and thereby rendered himself notoriously incorrigible; and that on account of the above and other crimes drawn from and contained in the said process against him, he should be deprived of and deposed from, as an unworthy, useless and damnable person, the papacy and all its spiritual and temporal administration. The said holy synod does now remove, deprive and depose him. It declares each and every Christian, of whatever state, dignity or condition, to be absolved from obedience, fidelity and oaths to him. It forbids all Christians henceforth to recognise him as pope, now that as mentioned he has been deposed from the papacy, or to call him pope, or to adhere to or in any way to obey him as pope. The said holy synod, moreover, from certain knowledge and its fullness of power, supplies for all and singular defects that may have occurred in the above-mentioned procedures or in any one of them. It condemns the said person, by this same sentence, to stay and remain in a good and suitable place, in the name of this sacred general council, in the safe custody of the most serene prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, etc., and most devoted advocate and defender of the universal church, as long as it seems to the said general council to be for the good of the unity of God's church that he should be so condemned. The said council reserves the right to declare and inflict other punishments that should be imposed for the said crimes and faults in accordance with canonical sanctions, according as the rigour of justice or the counsel of mercy may advise.

Decree to the effect that none of the three contenders for the papacy may be re-elected as pope

The said holy synod decrees, determines and ordains for the good of unity in God's church that neither the lord Baldassare de Cossa, recently John XXIII, nor Angelo Correr nor Peter de Luna, called Gregory XII and Benedict XIII by their respective obediences, shall ever be re-elected as pope. If the contrary happens, it is by this very fact null and void. Nobody, of whatever dignity or pre-eminence even if he be emperor, king, cardinal or pontiff, may ever adhere to or obey them or any one of them, contrary to this decree, under pain of eternal damnation and of being a supporter of the said schism. Let those who presume to the contrary, if there are any in the future, also be firmly proceeded against in other ways, even by invoking the secular arm.

Session 14—4 July 1415 [29]

Uniting of the followers of pope Gregory XII and of the former pope John XXIII, now that both men have abdicated

In order that the reunion of the church may be possible and that a beginning may be made which is fitting and pleasing to God, since the most important part of any matter is its beginning, and in order that the two obediences—namely the one claiming that the lord John XXIII was formerly pope and the other claiming that the lord Gregory XII is pope—may be united together under Christ as head, this most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit and representing the catholic church, accepts in all matters the convoking, authorising, approving and confirming that is now being made in the name of the lord who is called Gregory XII by those obedient to him, insofar as it seems to pertain to him to do this, since the certainty obtained by taking a precaution harms nobody and benefits all, and it decrees and declares that the aforesaid two obediences are joined and united in the one body of our lord Jesus Christ and of this sacred universal general council, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.

Decree stating that the election of the Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner and form to be laid down by the sacred council, and that the council shall not be dissolved until the election of the next Roman pontiff has been made

The most holy general synod of Constance, etc., enacts, pronounces, ordains and decrees, in order that God's holy church may be provided for better, more genuinely and more securely, that the next election of the future Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner, form, place, time and way that shall be decided upon by the sacred council; that the same council can and may henceforth declare fit, accept and designate, in the manner and form that then seems suitable, any persons for the purposes of this election, whether by active or by passive voice, of whatever state or obedience they are or may have been, and any other ecclesiastical acts and all other suitable things, notwithstanding any proceedings, penalties or sentences; and that the sacred council shall not be dissolved until the said election has been held. The said holy synod therefore exhorts and requires the most victorious prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, as the church's devoted advocate and as the sacred council's defender and protector, to direct all his efforts to this end and to promise on his royal word that he wishes to do this and to order letters of his majesty to be made out for this purpose.

The council approves Gregory XII's resignation

The most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal catholic church, accepts, approves and commends, in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, the cession renunciation and resignation made on behalf of the lord who was called Gregory XII in his obedience, by the magnificent and powerful lord Charles Malatesta. here present, his irrevocable procurator for this business, of the right, title and possession that he had, or may have had, in regard to the papacy.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4
That leaves no authority to a pope depending on his election by the Council of Constance to declare its acts "illicit." If "Pope" Martin V thought the Councils Acts-and the Council makes no distinction between its Acts Sessions-then he should not have accepted election by them.

Quote
This decree, however, is not considered valid by the Catholic Church, since it was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors, and was passed by the Council in a session before his confirmation. The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an invalid and illicit assembly of Bishops, gathered under the authority of Emperor Sigismund and Antipope John XXIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_constance#Decrees_and_doctrinal_status

Rather intereting catch 22 you got there:if the decree is not valid, then the act of electing Martin "Pope," which the Council predicates on its earlier acts, must be rejected as void as well. And "Pope" Gregory should not abdicated to Council,which had already issued Haec Sancta.  btw, when did those Popes depending on the Council of Constance for their legitimacy declare its acts illicit?

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.

The Popes of the Roman and Pisan lines cooperatively convened the Council of Constance, giving it full authority.

To act licitly, I would suppose.

The Popes of the Avignon line later recognized that it had been an authoritative council.
Pope Clement VIII submitted to Pope Martin V 26 July 1429, which was accepted a month later, ending officially the 51 year schism which started in 1378, with a decidedly phyletist backing.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #222 on: January 02, 2011, 11:18:19 AM »


The big deal is that he abolished the procedures for electing a successor, without giving the means to get a successor.  The epitomy of a constitutional crisis of succession.

That's not a big deal, Professor...nor is it an "epitomy"

Maybe you are a linguist and not an historian.

The big deal is that there is nothing in this putative discussion of your's here that has anything to do with primacy OR infallibility.
I was thinking of moving responses to more appropriate threads, but didn't have the time

Quote
Whatever Adrian V did was procedural and was managed by his successors.  These are earthly considerations and the Cardinals had every power to make the necessary procedural arrangements in the absence of Adrian V.
According to your present code of canon law, your present "dogmatic constitution," and the practice and theory underlying both stretching back to before Pope Adrian V,no, the cardinals did not.  Remember "can do nothing without their head."

No one but the Orthodox and Protestants put this kind of twist on the present canons.

As I said, you are shooting a breeze here and it is not from the horse's mouth.

There's no other response to this kind of idiocy....Prof.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #223 on: January 02, 2011, 12:14:58 PM »

You appear to have diverted the discussion away from the Meletian, Acacian, and Photian schisms and the roles played in them by Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, and Nicholas I.
no. Fatherhood, sonship and Vespers called.  I do have priorities.

Care to give your thoughts on them?
Sure do, but I have to catch up on sleep now. Lord willing tommorrow.

Quote from: Ialmisry
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.

Make specific claims, not general allusions, please.

I state facts. The Meletian schism is not a general allusion, but a specific incident which makes a mockery of Ultramontanist claims.

we have st. Jerome's whiney letter on the schism, a favorite of Ultramontanist quote mines:
Quote
Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Genesis 7:23 But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm
He did have something with Paulinus, as Paulinus was recognized by Rome and Jerome received ordination from Paulinus, as SS. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great did from St. Meletius.

Rather odd that Rome and Jerome went with Paulinus, who was consecrated by Lucifer (what a name!):
Quote
Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, was sent by ["Pope"] Liberius the bishop, with Pancratius and Hilary, clergy of the Roman church, to the emperor Constantius, as legates for the faith. When he would not condemn the Nicene faith as represented by Athanasius, sent again to Palestine, with wonderful constancy and willingness to meet martyrdom, he wrote a book against the emperor Constantius and sent it to be read by him, and not long after he returned to Cagliari in the reign of the emperor Julian and died in the reign of Valentinian.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm
against whose views Jerome himself wrote a refutation:
Quote
This Dialogue was written about 379, seven years after the death of Lucifer, and very soon after Jerome's return from his hermit life in the desert of Chalcis. Though he received ordination from Paulinus, who had been consecrated by Lucifer, he had no sympathy with Lucifer's narrower views, as he shows plainly in this Dialogue. Lucifer, who was bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, first came into prominent notice about a.d. 354, when great efforts were being made to procure a condemnation of S. Athanasius by the Western bishops. He energetically took up the cause of the saint, and at his own request was sent by Liberius, bishop of Rome, in company with the priest Pancratius and the deacon Hilarius, on a mission to the Emperor Constantius. The emperor granted a Council, which met at Milan in a.d. 354. Lucifer distinguished himself by resisting a proposition to condemn Athanasius, and did not hesitate to oppose the emperor with much violence. In consequence of this he was sent into exile from a.d. 355 to a.d. 361, the greater portion of which time was spent at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, though he afterwards removed to the Thebaid. It was at this time that his polemical writings appeared, the tone and temper of which is indicated by the mere titles De Regibus Apostaticis (of Apostate Kings), De non Conveniendo cum Hæreticis, etc. (of not holding communion with heretics). On the death of Constantius in 361, Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return; but Lucifer instead of going to Alexandria where a Council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius for the healing of a schism in the Catholic party at Antioch (some of which held to Meletius, while others followed Eustathius), preferred to go straight to Antioch. There he ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bishop of the Church. Eusebius of Vercellæ; soon arrived with the synodal letters of the Council of Alexandria, but, finding himself thus anticipated, and shrinking from a collision with his friend, he retired immediately. Lucifer stayed, and declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policy of the Alexandrian Council. By this Council it had been determined that actual Arians, if they renounced their heresy, should be pardoned, but not invested with ecclesiastical functions; and that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism should remain undisturbed. It was this latter concession which offended Lucifer, and he became henceforth the champion of the principle that no one who had yielded to any compromise whatever with Arianism should be allowed to hold an ecclesiastical office. He was thus brought into antagonism with Athanasius himself, who, it has been seen, presided at Alexandria. Eventually he returned to his see in Sardinia where, according to Jerome's Chronicle, he died in 371. Luciferianism became extinct in the beginning of the following century, if not earlier. It hardly appears to have been formed into a separate organization, though an appeal was made to the emperor by some Luciferian presbyters about the year 384, and both Ambrose and Augustine speak of him as having fallen into the schism
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm
but side with Paulinus Jerome and Rome did.
Quote
Meletius, the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch, was the only acceptable one for the East; unfortunately he was going into exile for the third time. In these circumstances Basil began negotiations with Meletius and Athanasius for the pacification of the East.

Aside from the inherent difficulties of the situation, the slowness of communication was an added hindrance. Not only did Basil's representative have to travel from Cæsarea to Armenia, and from Armenia to Alexandria, he also had to go to Rome to obtain the sanction of Pope Damasus and the acquiescence of the West. Notwithstanding the blunder committed at Antioch in 363, the generous spirit of Athanasius gave hope of success, his sudden death, however (May, 373), caused all efforts to be abandoned. Even at Rome and in the West, Basil and Meletius were to meet with disappointment. While they wrought persistently to restore peace, a new Antiochene community, declaring itself connected with Rome and Athanasius, increased the number of dissidents, aggravated the rivalry, and renewed the disputes. There were now three Antiochene churches that formally adopted the Nicene Creed. The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had ended unfortunately, and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East.

St. Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without having a thorough knowledge of the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and Paulinus, he made a direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but which the pope did not answer. Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch, let himself be ordained presbyter by Paulinus, and became the echo of Paulinist imputations against Meletius and his following.

In this way the rôle of Meletius became daily more prominent. While in his own city a minority contested his right to the see and questioned his orthodoxy, his influence was spreading in the East, and from various parts of the empire bishops accepted his leadership. Chalcedon, Ancyra, Melitene, Pergama, Cæsarea of Cappadocia, Bostra, parts of Syria and Palestine, looked to him for direction, and this movement grew rapidly. In 363 Meletius could count on 26 bishops, in 379 more than 150 rallied around him. Theological unity was at least restored in Syria and Asia Minor. Meletius and his disciples, however, had not been spared by the Arians. While Paulinus and his party were seemingly neglected by them, Meletius was again exiled (May, 365) to Armenia. His followers expelled from the churches, sought meeting places for worship wherever they could. This new exile, owing to a lull in the persecution, was of short duration, and probably in 367 Meletius took up again the government of his see. It was then that John, the future Chrysostom, entered the ranks of the clergy. The lull was soon over. In 371 persecution raged anew in Antioch, where Valens resided almost to the time of his death. At this time St. Basil occupied the see of Cæsarea (370) and was a strong supporter of Meletius.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

Quote
Though the election of Meletius was beyond contestation, the hot-headed Lucifer Cagliari yielded to the solicitations of the opposing faction, and instead of temporizing and awaiting Meletius's approaching return from exile, assisted by two confessors he hastily consecrated as Bishop of Antioch the Eustathian leader, Paulinus. This unwise measure was a great calamity, for it definitively established the schism. Meletius and his adherents were not responsible, and it is a peculiar injustice of history that this division should be known as the Meletian schism when the Eustathians or Paulinians were alone answerable for it.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

Antioch, Constantinople (or rather, the Asian Churches) and Jerusalem stood by Pat. St. Meletius, and he opened the Second Ecumenical Council, where the Fathers set their seal on the Orthodox Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Rome, which was in schism from Antioch and Constantinople (which became autocephalous at the Council), did not participate.
Quote
In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly. It began by electing Gregory of Nazianzus Bishop of Constantinople, and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it was Meletius who enthroned him. The Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith, but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and peace. The death of one whose firmness and gentleness had kindled great expectations caused universal sorrow. The obsequies, at which Emperor Theodosius was present, took place in the church of the Apostles. The funeral panegyrics were touching and magnificent. His death blasted many hopes and justified grave forebodings. The body was transferred from Constantinople to Antioch, where, after a second and solemn funeral service, the body of the aged bishop was laid beside his predecessor St. Babylas. But his name was to live after him, and long remained for the Eastern faithful a rallying sign and a synonym of orthodoxy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

When St. Meletius was recalled by the Lord during the Council, it elected, over Rome's strenous objections, St. Flavian as his successor. St. Meletius has suggested that Paulinus succeed him
Quote
In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement. Meanwhile, a great council of Eastern bishops was convoked at Constantinople to appoint a bishop for the imperial city and to settle other ecclesiastical affairs.
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm
but Paulinus and Rome rejected that. Now at Constantinople I they insisted on it.  The Paulician line was abandoned by Rome about two decades later, and none of the four "successors of St. Peter" at Antioch that the Vatican installed after 1054 (there being Four concurrent Patriarchs of Antioch during Vatican II, and today the Vatican gives the palium to three patriarchs of Antioch) claim their orders from Paulinus (who line died out c. 415), but claim them from St. Meletius, a Patriarch who was rejected by Rome all during his patriarchate.

Quote
When Meletius was appointed bishop of Antioch in 361 he ordained Flavian to the priesthood, and on the death of Meletius in 381 Flavian was chosen to succeed him. The schism between the two parties was, however, far from being healed. The Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Alexandria refused to acknowledge Flavian, and Paulinus, who by the extreme Eustathians had been elected bishop in opposition to Meletius, continued to exercise authority over a portion of the church.

On the death of Paulinus in about 383, Evagrius was chosen as his successor. After the death of Evagrius (c. 393), Flavian succeeded in preventing the election of a successor, though the Eustathians still continued to hold separate meetings. Through the intervention of John Chrysostom, soon after his elevation to the patriarchate of Constantinople in 398, and the influence of the emperor Theodosius I, Flavian was acknowledged in 399 as the sole legitimate bishop of Antioch.

Nevertheless, the Eustathian schism was not finally healed until 415. Flavian is posthumously venerated in both the Western and Eastern churches as a saint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavian_of_Antioch
Quote
"Ambrose was agitating for a general council to bring matters to a head, and succeeded in persuading the western emperor, Gratian, to convoke one in Rome. A number of western metropolitans assembled there in the summer of 382, but the east declined to cooperate. In fact Theodosius had no wish to see the settlement he was establishing upset by western meddling, and had already re-convened the council of the previous year at Constantinople. When the belated western summons reached them, the eastern bishops gathered there sent a courteous but firm reply, excusing themselves from attending, apart from a token delegation of three, but not yielding an inch on the disputed issues."
Kelly, J. N. D., (1975), "Jerome: His life, writings and controversies", (Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, MA), pp80-81.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7374572-92/

Btw
Quote
The orthodoxy of the bishop was fully established, and his profession of faith was a severe blow for the Arian party. St. Basil wrote the hesitating St. Epiphanius that "Meletius was the first to speak freely in favour of the truth and to fight the good fight in the reign of Constans". As Meletius ended his discourse his audience asked him for a summary of his teaching. He extended three fingers towards the people, then closed two and said, "Three Persons are conceived in the mind but it as though we addressed one only". This gesture remained famous and became a rallying sign. The Arians were not slow to avenge themselves. On vague pretexts the emperor banished Meletius to his native Armenia. He had occupied his see less than a month.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

Quote
Theodoret (393–457) gave the following instruction:

This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers. You should hold the other two fingers slightly bent, not completely straight. This is because these represent the dual nature of Christ, divine and human. God in His divinity, and human in His incarnation, yet perfect in both. The upper finger represents divinity, and the lower humanity; this way salvation goes from the higher finger to the lower. So is the bending of the fingers interpreted, for the worship of Heaven comes down for our salvation. This is how you must cross yourselves and give a blessing, as the holy fathers have commanded.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sign_of_the_Cross

Specific enough?

Got to get to DL. Lord willing I will return.
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
Warned
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: 37,960



« Reply #224 on: January 02, 2011, 12:17:18 PM »


The big deal is that he abolished the procedures for electing a successor, without giving the means to get a successor.  The epitomy of a constitutional crisis of succession.

That's not a big deal, Professor...nor is it an "epitomy"

Maybe you are a linguist and not an historian.

The big deal is that there is nothing in this putative discussion of your's here that has anything to do with primacy OR infallibility.
I was thinking of moving responses to more appropriate threads, but didn't have the time

Quote
Whatever Adrian V did was procedural and was managed by his successors.  These are earthly considerations and the Cardinals had every power to make the necessary procedural arrangements in the absence of Adrian V.
According to your present code of canon law, your present "dogmatic constitution," and the practice and theory underlying both stretching back to before Pope Adrian V,no, the cardinals did not.  Remember "can do nothing without their head."

No one but the Orthodox and Protestants put this kind of twist on the present canons.

As I said, you are shooting a breeze here and it is not from the horse's mouth.

There's no other response to this kind of idiocy....Prof.
that coming from the horse's....well not his mouth.
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: Papal Infallibility ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  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 0.279 seconds with 72 queries.