OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 02:31:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Haec Sancta" and Vatican I  (Read 1507 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« on: May 28, 2012, 09:25:49 PM »

How are Catholics able to reconcile these two opposing councils?

Haec Sancta from the Council of Constance proclaimed:

-Is lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit
-Constitutes a general council
-Represents the Catholic Church militant

The synod declares that it:
-Has its power directly from Christ
-And declares that

all persons of whatever rank, state, or dignity, even the papal, are bound to obey [this holy synod] in matters relating to:
-The faith
-The ending of the schism
-The general reform of the Church
-In head
-And members

which is completely contrary to Vatican I.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2012, 10:31:07 PM »

The idea is that this portion was "unapproved" and not valid because it was taken before RC Pope Gregory XII's confirmation AND that is was never approved by him or subsequent RC popes. But remember, the Council of Constance DID resolve the Three Popes Controversy DESPITE the fact that RC theologians and historians will tell you that Gregory was always the legitimate Pope who was chosen in 1406--ten years before the end of the Council.
 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 10:31:53 PM by LakaYaRabb » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,679



« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2012, 12:26:39 AM »

The idea is that this portion was "unapproved" and not valid because it was taken before RC Pope Gregory XII's confirmation AND that is was never approved by him or subsequent RC popes. But remember, the Council of Constance DID resolve the Three Popes Controversy DESPITE the fact that RC theologians and historians will tell you that Gregory was always the legitimate Pope who was chosen in 1406--ten years before the end of the Council.
LOL. Is it resolving something when you leave all those loose ends untied?
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2012, 08:37:25 AM »

The idea is that this portion was "unapproved" and not valid because it was taken before RC Pope Gregory XII's confirmation AND that is was never approved by him or subsequent RC popes. But remember, the Council of Constance DID resolve the Three Popes Controversy DESPITE the fact that RC theologians and historians will tell you that Gregory was always the legitimate Pope who was chosen in 1406--ten years before the end of the Council.
LOL. Is it resolving something when you leave all those loose ends untied?

Regarding the which-was-the-real-Pope question, this is from Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote
(4) To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost insoluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just.
...

(That's the beginning of a lengthy paragraph I won't quote, so click on the link to see it all.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2012, 08:39:12 AM »

The idea is that this portion was "unapproved" and not valid because it was taken before RC Pope Gregory XII's confirmation AND that is was never approved by him or subsequent RC popes.

That sounds good to me. I'll be interested in hearing whether Aindriú is satisfied with it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2012, 11:26:02 AM »

The idea is that this portion was "unapproved" and not valid because it was taken before RC Pope Gregory XII's confirmation AND that is was never approved by him or subsequent RC popes.

That sounds good to me. I'll be interested in hearing whether Aindriú is satisfied with it.

I think it's crap, but I have to go back to work. I'll try to provide my reservations and objections tonight.

 Cheesy Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2012, 11:56:02 AM »

The idea is that this portion was "unapproved" and not valid because it was taken before RC Pope Gregory XII's confirmation AND that is was never approved by him or subsequent RC popes.

That sounds good to me. I'll be interested in hearing whether Aindriú is satisfied with it.

I think it's crap, but I have to go back to work. I'll try to provide my reservations and objections tonight.

 Cheesy Grin

I look forward to it. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,132


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2012, 12:15:54 PM »

The idea is that this portion was "unapproved" and not valid because it was taken before RC Pope Gregory XII's confirmation AND that is was never approved by him or subsequent RC popes.

That sounds good to me. I'll be interested in hearing whether Aindriú is satisfied with it.

I think it's crap, but I have to go back to work. I'll try to provide my reservations and objections tonight.

 Cheesy Grin

Reservations and objections, particularly from non-Orthodox non-Catholics, are **never** in short supply around here  Grin  CheesyRoll Eyes Grin  CheesyRoll Eyes.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2012, 01:48:08 PM »

And here is more:

Quote
Though forsaken by most of his cardinals, Gregory XII was still the true pope and was recognized as such by Rupert, King of the Romans, King Ladislaus of Naples, and some Italian princes.The Council of Constance finally put an end to the intolerable situation of the Church. At the fourteenth session (4 July, 1415) a Bull of Gregory XII was read which appointed Malatesta and Cardinal Dominici of Ragusa as his proxies at the council. The cardinal then read a mandatory of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts. Hereupon Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly. The cardinals accepted the resignation, retained all the cardinals that had been created by him, and appointed him Bishop of Porto and perpetual legate at Ancona. Two years later, before the election of the new pope, Martin V, Gregory XII died in the odour of sanctity.

It is from the same Catholic Encyclopedia see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001a.htm
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2012, 09:45:59 PM »

Alright. My list of events (concisely):

The Avignon Papacy (Frenchies) lasted from (1309-1377). In 1378 a new Italian Pope was named:

--Pope Urban VI (1378-1389) (Italian)

The college of Cardinals were still mostly Frenchies. Pope Urban not only was proud to be an Italian Pope, he showed it. He openly lorded over them. After 3.5 months, the French cardinals said "non" to this new Pope and decided it was invalid. The election was conducted under considerable pressure. This is questioned as to if it actually invalidates the election.

In any case, a new Pope from Naples was elected:

--Clement VII (1378-1394)

And begins the Great Papal Schism of 1378-1417 (dum dum duummmm). The Split:

-Urban VI backed by Germany, Italy, northern and eastern Europe, and England
and
-Clement VII backed by Iberian Peninsula (except Portugal), France, and Scotland  --> And his successor Benedict XIII (1394-1417)





Up to this point there had been three papal schisms (1080-1100, 1130-1138, and 1159-1177), but they had been resolved by one of the two Popes gaining full recognition. In this Schism both sides had successors, and the support ran deep. This also means none of the previous Popes have been intervened by a council.

The best solution was via conventionis. That is, mutual resignation through bilateral agreement for the sake of Christian unity.

They both agreed to meet in 1408 to do this by meeting in Savona. Benedict XIII (Avignon) went to Savona, but Gregory XII (Roman successor, 1406-1415) did not. Benedict went partway to meet Gregory, but they never still never met.

Enter "Concilliarism". That is, the doctrine that a council stands above the Pope. Until now, the only way a Pope could be deposed was if he was claimed a heretic (papa haereticus). Otherwise, he was the faithful 'vicar of Christ' that no one could judge (prima sedes a nemine iudicatur).

Since the Council of Vienne (1311-1312), there had been plenty of voices that agreed with the position the Papacy was the greatest obstacle to reform. What reform? Financial corruption. Reservations, annates, and expectancies had caused finance to be the dominant force within the Roman church. Simony had become far too common. With the current problem, the concilliar voices became stronger.

Since via conventionis was rejected, via concilii took it's shot at fixing the schism. Since the Pope couldn't call a council, the next in line was the college of cardinals. They met in 1409 at the council of Pisa. They put BOTH Popes on trial and deposed them as heretics. Heretics (the only way they could be deposed) for refusing to resign in order to facilitate union. They had violated the faith that the Church is "one" and "holy".

The council then elected Alexander V (1409-1410) as the new pope, who was followed by John XXIII (1410-1415).

But.... it didn't work. It was a trinitas non benedicta, sed maledicta. Despite the greater support of the church being behind the concilliar Pope (Pisa), the other two still had their supporters.

-Benedict XIII(Avignon) was still supported by Spain and Scotland.
-Gregory XII was still supported by some of Germany and now Naples.

A second attempt was then made to resolve by council.

The German King Sigismund now took control and called a council. Working with Pope John XXII, Sigismund called a council (who because of greater support, were obedient to John). Now the method was more diplomatic by showing great concern for the legitimacy of each Pope in order to achieve unity.

The Council of Constance supported John XXII. They needed him to be recognized as legitimate and get Gregory XII and Benedict XIII to resign. But Sigismund saw that the Pisan Pope would have to resign as well. And this is where is gets funny.

John XXII first agrees to resign. Then flees Constance due to being afraid for his life. Sigismund sent messengers to John, but he then fled again! He also revoked his promise to resign saying it was forced and invalid. Additionally, he called the cardinals to him (attempts to dissolve the council).

The cardinals, against previous thought, refuse to submit and stand on their own rights. They submit Haec Sancta in 1415. They declare being "legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit" and representing the church, receiving their power from Christ, and EVERYONE is bound to obey (even Popes).

SO:
-John XXII was arrested, tried, and deposed.
-Gregory XII agrees to resign. Formally calls a council for himself, and resigns.
-Benedict said the cardinals weren't legitimate. The only legitimate cardinals were the ones originally who were appointed one before the schism (1378). Guess who the only cardinal left that was from then? That's right.... Benedict. So, he was the only legit cardinal.... Long story short he was deposed in 1417 and lived in a castle in Aragon until his death which he called his "Noah's ark". (He had excommunicated the whole Church and thus was the only true Christian left.)

They then elected a new Pope: Martin V (1417-1431).

Part of the decisions at the Council was to have regular councils to regulate and reform the church. BUT, that was more tedious than realized (generally every 10 years), because not everyone could show that often. The process eventually broke down.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 09:51:32 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2012, 08:39:09 AM »

Alright. My list of events (concisely):

The Avignon Papacy (Frenchies) lasted from (1309-1377). In 1378 a new Italian Pope was named:

--Pope Urban VI (1378-1389) (Italian)

The college of Cardinals were still mostly Frenchies. Pope Urban not only was proud to be an Italian Pope, he showed it. He openly lorded over them. After 3.5 months, the French cardinals said "non" to this new Pope and decided it was invalid. The election was conducted under considerable pressure. This is questioned as to if it actually invalidates the election.

In any case, a new Pope from Naples was elected:

--Clement VII (1378-1394)

And begins the Great Papal Schism of 1378-1417 (dum dum duummmm). The Split:

-Urban VI backed by Germany, Italy, northern and eastern Europe, and England
and
-Clement VII backed by Iberian Peninsula (except Portugal), France, and Scotland  --> And his successor Benedict XIII (1394-1417)





Up to this point there had been three papal schisms (1080-1100, 1130-1138, and 1159-1177), but they had been resolved by one of the two Popes gaining full recognition. In this Schism both sides had successors, and the support ran deep. This also means none of the previous Popes have been intervened by a council.

The best solution was via conventionis. That is, mutual resignation through bilateral agreement for the sake of Christian unity.

They both agreed to meet in 1408 to do this by meeting in Savona. Benedict XIII (Avignon) went to Savona, but Gregory XII (Roman successor, 1406-1415) did not. Benedict went partway to meet Gregory, but they never still never met.

Enter "Concilliarism". That is, the doctrine that a council stands above the Pope. Until now, the only way a Pope could be deposed was if he was claimed a heretic (papa haereticus). Otherwise, he was the faithful 'vicar of Christ' that no one could judge (prima sedes a nemine iudicatur).

Since the Council of Vienne (1311-1312), there had been plenty of voices that agreed with the position the Papacy was the greatest obstacle to reform. What reform? Financial corruption. Reservations, annates, and expectancies had caused finance to be the dominant force within the Roman church. Simony had become far too common. With the current problem, the concilliar voices became stronger.

Since via conventionis was rejected, via concilii took it's shot at fixing the schism. Since the Pope couldn't call a council, the next in line was the college of cardinals. They met in 1409 at the council of Pisa. They put BOTH Popes on trial and deposed them as heretics. Heretics (the only way they could be deposed) for refusing to resign in order to facilitate union. They had violated the faith that the Church is "one" and "holy".

The council then elected Alexander V (1409-1410) as the new pope, who was followed by John XXIII (1410-1415).

But.... it didn't work. It was a trinitas non benedicta, sed maledicta. Despite the greater support of the church being behind the concilliar Pope (Pisa), the other two still had their supporters.

-Benedict XIII(Avignon) was still supported by Spain and Scotland.
-Gregory XII was still supported by some of Germany and now Naples.

A second attempt was then made to resolve by council.

The German King Sigismund now took control and called a council. Working with Pope John XXII, Sigismund called a council (who because of greater support, were obedient to John). Now the method was more diplomatic by showing great concern for the legitimacy of each Pope in order to achieve unity.

The Council of Constance supported John XXII. They needed him to be recognized as legitimate and get Gregory XII and Benedict XIII to resign. But Sigismund saw that the Pisan Pope would have to resign as well. And this is where is gets funny.

John XXII first agrees to resign. Then flees Constance due to being afraid for his life. Sigismund sent messengers to John, but he then fled again! He also revoked his promise to resign saying it was forced and invalid. Additionally, he called the cardinals to him (attempts to dissolve the council).

The cardinals, against previous thought, refuse to submit and stand on their own rights. They submit Haec Sancta in 1415. They declare being "legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit" and representing the church, receiving their power from Christ, and EVERYONE is bound to obey (even Popes).

SO:
-John XXII was arrested, tried, and deposed.
-Gregory XII agrees to resign. Formally calls a council for himself, and resigns.
-Benedict said the cardinals weren't legitimate. The only legitimate cardinals were the ones originally who were appointed one before the schism (1378). Guess who the only cardinal left that was from then? That's right.... Benedict. So, he was the only legit cardinal.... Long story short he was deposed in 1417 and lived in a castle in Aragon until his death which he called his "Noah's ark". (He had excommunicated the whole Church and thus was the only true Christian left.)

They then elected a new Pope: Martin V (1417-1431).

Part of the decisions at the Council was to have regular councils to regulate and reform the church. BUT, that was more tedious than realized (generally every 10 years), because not everyone could show that often. The process eventually broke down.

Great post, but I believe you did miss one important detail:
Benedict XIII's successor, Clement VIII, abdicated on 26 July 1429 and endorse Martin V. So, at that point, there could be no doubt that Martin V was the valid pope.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,699


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2012, 01:49:12 PM »

I think this thread has potential. I wonder if it can stay on topic until page two?  Cheesy

Another aspect that Isa brought up but I didn't see addressed is:

.

This came up in a debate, where the issues of Orthodox succession were dealt with rather nicely:
Quote
Scott starts out by pre-supposing that Pope Benedict XVI is the current and valid successor to St. Peter's See, and the valid Patriarch of the Latin Church, and says he feels safe in assuming I will recognize these facts since apostolic succession in general is something we both agree on.

Unfortunately, Scott doesn't know as much about the Eastern traditions as he has made out. There are two theories of valid succession, the so-called Cyprianic view and the Augustinian view. The Cyprianic view is essentially that valid orders, succession and sacraments are a function of the mystical body of Christ, which must of necessity be One. The true church and true succession are not something that can be separated. On the other hand, the Augustinian view is that they can be separated. If orders are bestowed with proper form and intent, then they are valid, regardless of how the Church feels about it.

Eastern Churches have always generally held to the Cyprianic view. Valid succession is a really a question of valid Church. Since Orthodoxy considers Rome's status as a valid church highly questionable, it considers the Pope as a valid bishop equally as questionable.

A problem for Rome is that the Papacy doesn't really fit into the Augustinian model. There are anti-popes both now and in times past with valid orders according to the Catholic reckoning of such things, who have been appointed as Bishop of Rome with correct form and intent. The Papacy is the one ecclesiastical office where Catholics have to fall back to a kind of Cyprianic model, where the true holder of the office is dependant on what the true Church recognizes.

All of which means that Orthodoxy would consider the proposition that the Pope holds any kind of valid orders, to be highly questionable at best, let alone recognizing Benedict as the "Patriarch of the Latin Church". There would be some Orthodox who would express that sentiment, but it would not be the standard position.

The second problem with recognizing Benedict XVI as the "current and valid "successor of Peter, "rightfully sitting in Peter's see", is that as we have seen in my opening statement, Peter has more than one see. At the very least Antioch historically has been regarded as Peter's See and Peter's Chair, and Pope Gregory also regarded Alexandria as Peter's see. However, for Scott to win this debate, it's not enough to prove that Benedict is one current successor of Peter, he must prove he is the only successor.
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm
Under the Augustanian view, Popes Alexander V and John XXIII are as valid as anti-Pope Gregory XII.  To try to apply the Cyprian view to vindicate the latter nullifies the argument, as no Pope of Old Rome qualifies under St. Cyprian since 1014.

Thoughts on this?
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2012, 07:41:23 PM »

Great post, but I believe you did miss one important detail:
Benedict XIII's successor, Clement VIII, abdicated on 26 July 1429 and endorse Martin V. So, at that point, there could be no doubt that Martin V was the valid pope.

Two concerns:

-Why do you consider Benedict's endorsement relevant?

-Martin V was still the only standing Pope.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 07:41:37 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2012, 08:25:06 PM »

Great post, but I believe you did miss one important detail:
Benedict XIII's successor, Clement VIII, abdicated on 26 July 1429 and endorse Martin V. So, at that point, there could be no doubt that Martin V was the valid pope.

Two concerns:

-Why do you consider Benedict's endorsement relevant?

Benedict XIII wasn't the last of his "line". Clement VIII was.

-Martin V was still the only standing Pope.

Well nowadays everyone agrees that Martin V was the real Pope right from the time he was elected; but from the p.o.v. of that time, it was certain that he was Pope once Clement VIII (the last rival claimant) resigned and endorsed Martin.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,679



« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2012, 08:37:57 PM »

Great post, but I believe you did miss one important detail:
Benedict XIII's successor, Clement VIII, abdicated on 26 July 1429 and endorse Martin V. So, at that point, there could be no doubt that Martin V was the valid pope.

Two concerns:

-Why do you consider Benedict's endorsement relevant?

Benedict XIII wasn't the last of his "line". Clement VIII was.

-Martin V was still the only standing Pope.

Well nowadays everyone agrees that Martin V was the real Pope right from the time he was elected; but from the p.o.v. of that time, it was certain that he was Pope once Clement VIII (the last rival claimant) resigned and endorsed Martin.
so an "anti-pope" can make a "pope."  Interesting.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2012, 08:51:02 PM »

so an "anti-pope" can make a "pope." 

No.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2012, 08:58:01 PM »

Great post, but I believe you did miss one important detail:
Benedict XIII's successor, Clement VIII, abdicated on 26 July 1429 and endorse Martin V. So, at that point, there could be no doubt that Martin V was the valid pope.

Two concerns:

-Why do you consider Benedict's endorsement relevant?

Benedict XIII wasn't the last of his "line". Clement VIII was.

Ah, I thought you were talking about Clement VII.

-Martin V was still the only standing Pope.

Well nowadays everyone agrees that Martin V was the real Pope right from the time he was elected; but from the p.o.v. of that time, it was certain that he was Pope once Clement VIII (the last rival claimant) resigned and endorsed Martin.

How much support did Clement VIII have?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2012, 09:03:44 PM »

Honestly though, it's irrelevant. A Pope was made, invalidated, new pope, two popes, condemned as heretics, new pope, three pope, council solves everything.... and the council is invalid? No.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2012, 09:15:57 PM »

Well nowadays everyone agrees that Martin V was the real Pope right from the time he was elected; but from the p.o.v. of that time, it was certain that he was Pope once Clement VIII (the last rival claimant) resigned and endorsed Martin.

How much support did Clement VIII have?

Extremely little, I believe.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,244



« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2012, 09:43:45 PM »

Honestly though, it's irrelevant. A Pope was made, invalidated, new pope, two popes, condemned as heretics, new pope, three pope, council solves everything.... and the council is invalid? No.
Here a pope, there a pope, everywhere a pope, pope! Old MacDonald....

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,699


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2012, 04:29:32 PM »

Honestly though, it's irrelevant. A Pope was made, invalidated, new pope, two popes, condemned as heretics, new pope, three pope, council solves everything.... and the council is invalid? No.

Is the entire council considered invalid or just Haec Sancta?
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2012, 07:12:51 PM »

Honestly though, it's irrelevant. A Pope was made, invalidated, new pope, two popes, condemned as heretics, new pope, three pope, council solves everything.... and the council is invalid? No.

Is the entire council considered invalid or just Haec Sancta?

As far as I know, the council is not technically "invalid". That is the current "interpretation". In otherwords, I think it's "technically" ignored.

In fact, the "frequens" was carried out for decades (beyond Martin V) until it became unsustainable.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 07:16:53 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2012, 07:19:30 PM »

Quote
With regard to the ecumenical nature of the sessions, there is dispute about those before the election of Martin V and also about the significance and force of the approval which he gave to the matters transacted by the council. The decrees notably those of sessions 3-5 and the decree Frequens (session 39), appear to proceed from the council's teaching. Objection has been made to them on the grounds of the primacy of the Roman pontiff. There is no doubt, however, that in enacting these decrees there was solicitude and care to choose the true and sure way ahead in order to heal the schism, and this could only be done by the authority of a council.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Quote
SESSION 3 - 26 March 1415

[Decrees on the integrity and authority of the council, after the pope s flight [18 ]]

For the honour, praise and glory of the most holy Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, and to obtain on earth, for people of good will, the peace that was divinely promised in God's church, this holy synod, called the sacred general council of Constance, duly assembled here in the holy Spirit for the purpose of bringing union and reform to the said church in its head and members, discerns declares, defines and ordains as follows.

First, that this synod was and is rightly and properly summoned to this city of Constance, and likewise has been rightly and properly begun and held.

Next, that this sacred council has not been dissolved by the departure of our lord pope from Constance, or even by the departure of other prelates or any other persons, but continues in its integrity and authority, even if decrees to the contrary have been made or shall be made in the future.
It took place, and was obeyed. How is this not valid?

Next, that this sacred council should not and may not be dissolved until the present schism has been entirely removed and until the church has been reformed in faith and morals, in head and members.

Next, that this sacred council may not be transferred to another place, except for a reasonable cause, which is to be debated and decided on by this sacred council.

Next, that prelates and other persons who should be present at this council may not depart from this place before it has ended, except for a reasonable cause which is to be examined by persons who have been, or will be, deputed by this sacred council. When the reason has been examined and approved, they may depart with the permission of the person or persons in authority. When the individual departs, he is bound to give his power to others who stay, under penalty of the law, as well as to others appointed by this sacred council, and those who act to the contrary are to be prosecuted.

SESSION 4 - 30 March 1415

[Decrees of the council on its authority and integrity, in the abbreviated form read out by cardinal Zabarella]

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God's church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God's church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.

First, that this synod, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council, representing the catholic church militant, 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 and the eradication of the said schism. [19 ]

Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from this city to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the persons of the said offices to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod; this refers to those officials or offices by whose absence the council would probably be dissolved or harmed. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties against the said officials or any other adherents of this council, to the effect that they should follow him then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void, and they are invalid. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod is being held in the said city.

Next, that all translations of prelates, and depositions of the same, or of any other beneficed persons, revocations of commendams and gifts, admonitions, ecclesiastical censures, processes, sentences, acts and whatever has been or will be done or accomplished by our aforesaid lord and his officials or commissaries, from the time of his departure, to the injury of the council or its adherents, against the supporters or participants of this sacred council, or to the prejudice of them or any one of them, in whatever way they may have been or shall be made or done, against the will of the persons concerned, are in virtue of the law itself null, quashed, invalid and void, and of no effect or moment, and the council by its authority quashes, invalidates and annuls them.

[Next, it was declared and decided that three persons should be chosen from each nation who know both the reasons of those wishing to depart and the punishments that ought to be inflicted on those departing without permission. [20 ]]

Next, that for the sake of unity new cardinals should not be created. Moreover, lest for reasons of deceit or fraud some persons may be said to have been made cardinals recently, this sacred council declares that those persons are not to be regarded as cardinals who were not publicly recognised and held to be such at the time of our lord pope's departure from the city of Constance.

SESSION 5 - 6 April 1415

The famous Haec Sancta decree contradicting Vatican 1 on papal primacy/infallibility.

[Decrees of the council, concerning its authority and integrity, which had been abbreviated by cardinal Zabarella at the preceding session, against the wishes of the nations, and which are now restored, repeated and confirmed by a public decree]

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God's church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God's church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.

First it declares that, 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.

Next, it declares that anyone of whatever condition, state or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously refuses to obey the past or future mandates, statutes, ordinances or precepts of this sacred council or of any other legitimately assembled general council, regarding the aforesaid things or matters pertaining to them, shall be subjected to well-deserved penance, unless he repents, and shall be duly punished, even by having recourse, if necessary, to other supports of the law.

Next, the said holy synod defines and ordains that the lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from the city of Constance to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the said officials to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties, against the said officials or any other adherents of this sacred council, to the effect that they should follow him, then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod h being held in the said City.

Next, that all translations of prelates, or depositions of the same, or of any other beneficed persons, officials and administrators, revocations of commendams and gifts, admonitions, ecclesiastical censures, processes, sentences and whatever has been or will be done or accomplished by the aforesaid lord pope John or his officials or commissaries, since the beginning of this council, to the injury of the said council or its adherents, against the supporters or participants of this sacred council, or to the prejudice of them or of any one of them, in whatever way they may have been or shall be made or done, against the will of the persons concerned, are by this very fact, on the authority of this sacred council, null, quashed, invalid and void, and of no effect or moment, and the council by its authority quashes, invalidates and annuls them.

Next, it declares that the lord pope John XXIII and all the prelates and other persons summoned to this sacred council, and other participants in the same synod, have enjoyed and do now enjoy full freedom, as has been apparent in the said sacred council, and the opposite has not been brought to the notice of the said summoned persons or of the said council. The said sacred council testifies to this before God and people. [21 ]

Quote
SESSION 39 - 9 October 1417

[On general councils]

The frequent holding of general councils is a pre-eminent means of cultivating the Lord's patrimony. It roots out the briars, thorns and thistles of heresies, errors and schisms, corrects deviations, reforms what is deformed and produces a richly fertile crop for the Lord's vineyard. Neglect of councils, on the other hand, spreads and fosters the aforesaid evils. This conclusion is brought before our eyes by the memory of past times and reflection on the present situation. For this reason we establish, enact, decree and ordain, by a perpetual edict, that general councils shall be held henceforth in the following way. The first shall follow in five years immediately after the end of this council, the second in seven years immediately after the end of the next council, and thereafter they are to be held every ten years for ever. They are to be held in places which the supreme pontiff is bound to nominate and assign within a month before the end of each preceding council, with the approval and consent of the council, or which, in his default, the council itself is bound to nominate. Thus, by a certain continuity, there will always be either a council in existence or one expected within a given time. If perchance emergencies arise, the time may be shortened by the supreme pontiff, acting on the advice of his brothers, the cardinals of the Roman church, but it may never be prolonged. Moreover, he may not change the place assigned for the next council without evident necessity. If an emergency arises whereby it seems necessary to change the place--for example in the case of a siege, war, disease or the like--then the supreme pontiff may, with the consent and written endorsement of his aforesaid brothers or of two-thirds of them, substitute another place which is suitable and fairly near to the place previously assigned. It must, however, be within the same nation unless the same or a similar impediment exists throughout the nation. In the latter case he may summon the council to another suitable place which is nearby but within another nation, and the prelates and other persons who are customarily summoned to a council will be obliged to come to it as if it had been the place originally assigned. The supreme pontiff is bound to announce and publish the change of place or the shortening of time in a legal and solemn form within a year before the date assigned, so that the aforesaid persons may be able to meet and hold the council at the appointed time.

[Provision to guard against future schisms]

If it happens--though may it not!--that a schism arises in the future in such a way that two or more persons claim to be supreme pontiffs, then the date of the council, if it is more than a year off, is to be brought forward to one year ahead; calculating this from the day on which two or more of them publicly assumed the insignia of their pontificates or on which they began to govern. All prelates and others who are bound to attend a council shall assemble at the council without the need for any summons, under pain of the law's sanctions and of other penalties which may be imposed by the council, and let the emperor and other kings and princes attend either in person or through official deputies, as if they had been besought, through the bowels of the mercy of our lord Jesus Christ, to put out a common fire. Each of those claiming to be the Roman pontiff is bound to announce and proclaim the council as taking place at the end of the year, as mentioned, in the previously assigned place; he is bound to do this within a month after the day on which he came to know that one or more other persons had assumed the insignia of the papacy or was administering the papacy; and this is under pain of eternal damnation, of the automatic loss of any rights that he had acquired in the papacy, and of being disqualified both actively and passively from all dignities. He is also bound to make the council known by letter to his rival claimant or claimants, challenging him or them to a judicial process, as well as to all prelates and princes, insofar as this is possible. He shall go in person to the place of the council at the appointed time, under pain of the aforesaid penalties, and shall not depart until the question of the schism has been fully settled by the council. None of the contenders for the papacy, moreover shall preside as pope at the council. Indeed, in order that the church may rejoice more freely and quickly in one undisputed pastor, all the contenders for the papacy are suspended by law as soon as the council has begun, on the authority of this holy synod, from all administration; and let not obedience be given in any way by anyone to them, or to any one of them until the question has been settled by the council.

If it happens in the future that the election of a Roman pontiff is brought about through fear, which would weigh upon even a steadfast man, or through pressure, then we declare that it is of no effect or moment and cannot be ratified or approved by subsequent consent even if the state of fear ceases. The cardinals, however, may not proceed to another election until a council has reached a decision about the election, unless the person elected resigns or dies. If they do proceed to this second election, then it is null by law and both those making the second election and the person elected, if he embarks upon his reign as pope, are deprived by law of every dignity, honour and rank--even cardinalatial or pontifical--and are thereafter ineligible for the same, even the papacy itself; and nobody may in any way obey as pope the second person elected, under pain of being a fosterer of schism. In such a case the council is to provide for the election of a pope. It is lawful, however, and indeed all the electors are bound, or at least the greater part of them, to move to a safe locality and to make a statement about the said fear. The statement is to be made in a prominent place before public notaries and important persons as well as before a multitude of the people. They are to do this as quickly as they can without danger to their persons, even if there is a threat of danger to all their goods. They shall state in their allegation the nature and extent of the fear and shall solemnly swear that the allegation is true that they believe they can prove it and that they are not making it out of malice or calumny. Such an allegation of fear cannot be delayed in any way until after the next council.

After they have moved and have alleged the fear in the above form, they are bound to summon the person elected to a council. If a council is not due for more than a year after their summons, then its date shall be brought forward by the law itself to only a year ahead, in the way explained above. The elected person is bound under pain of the aforesaid penalties, and the cardinals under pain of automatically losing the cardinalate and all their benefices, to announce and proclaim the council within a month after the summons, in the way mentioned above, and to make it known as soon as possible. The cardinals and other electors are bound to come in person to the place of the council, at a suitable time, and to remain there until the end of the affair.

The other prelates are bound to answer the cardinals' summons, as mentioned above, if the person elected fails to issue a summons. The latter will not preside at the council since he will have been suspended by law from all government of the papacy from the time the council begins, and he is not to be obeyed by anyone in any matter under pain of the offender becoming a promoter of schism. If the aforesaid emergencies arise within a year before the beginning of a council-namely that more than one person claim to be pope or that someone has been elected through fear or pressure--then those who claim to be pope, or the one elected through fear or pressure, as well as the cardinals, are deemed by law as having been summoned to the council. They are bound, moreover, to appear in person at the council, to explain their case and to await the council's judgment. But if some emergency happens during the above occurrences whereby it is necessary to change the place of the council--for example a siege or war or disease or some such--then nevertheless all the aforesaid persons, as well as all prelates and others who are obliged to attend a council, are bound to assemble at a neighbouring place suitable for the council, as has been said above. Moreover, the greater part of the prelates who have moved to a particular place within a month may specify it as the place of the council to which they and others are bound to come, just as if it had been the place first assigned. The council, after it has thus been summoned and has assembled and become acquainted with the cause of the schism, shall bring a suit of contumacy against the electors or those claiming to be pope or the cardinals, if perchance they fail to come. It shall then pronounce judgment and shall punish, even beyond the aforesaid penalties and in such a way that the fierceness of the punishment acts as an example to others, those who are to blame--no matter of what state or rank or pre-eminence, whether ecclesiastical or secular, they may be--in starting or fostering the schism, in their administering or obeying, in their supporting those who governed or in making an election against the aforesaid prohibition, or who lied m their allegations of fear.

The disturbance caused by fear or pressure at a papal election corrodes and divides, in a lamentable way, the whole of Christianity. In order that it may be assiduously avoided, we have decided to decree, in addition to what has been said above, that if anyone brings to bear or causes, or procures to be brought about, fear or pressure or violence of this kind upon the electors in a papal election, or upon any one of them, or has the matter ratified after it has been done, or advises or acts in support of it, or knowingly receives or defends someone who has done this, or is negligent in enforcing the penalties mentioned below--no matter of what state or rank or pre-eminence the offender may be, even if it be imperial or regal or pontifical, or any other ecclesiastical or secular dignity he may hold--then he automatically incurs the penalties contained in pope Boniface VIII's constitution which begins Felicis, and he shall be effectively punished by them.

Any city--even if it be Rome itself, though may it not be!--or any other corporation that gives aid, counsel or support to someone who does these things, or that does not have such an offender punished within a month, insofar as the enormity of the crime demands and there exists the possibility of inflicting the punishment, shall automatically be subject to ecclesiastical interdict. Furthermore the city, apart from the one mentioned above, shall be deprived of the episcopal dignity, notwithstanding any privileges to the contrary. We wish, moreover, that this decree be solemnly published at the end of every general council and that it be read out and publicly announced before the start of a conclave, wherever and whenever the election of a Roman pontiff is about to take place.

[On the profession to be made by the pope]

Since the Roman pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by the rites that are to be observed regarding the church's sacraments. We therefore decree and ordain, in order that the fullness of the faith may shine in a future Roman pontiff with singular splendour from the earliest moments of his becoming pope, that henceforth whoever is to be elected Roman pontiff shall make the following confession and profession in public, in front of his electors, before his election is published.

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. In the year of our Lord's nativity one thousand etc., I, N., elected pope, with both heart and mouth confess and profess to almighty God, whose church I undertake with his assistance to govern, and to blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, that as long as I am in this fragile life I will firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the traditions of the apostles, of the general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils-namely the first at

Nicaea, the second at

Constantinople, the third at

Ephesus, the fourth at

Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at

Constantinople, the seventh at

Nicaea and the eighth at

Constantinople--as well as of the general councils at the

Lateran,

Lyons and

Vienne,

and I will preserve this faith unchanged to the last dot and will confirm, defend and preach it to the point of death and the shedding of my blood, and likewise I will follow and observe in every way the rite handed down of the ecclesiastical sacraments of the catholic church. This my profession and confession, written at my orders by a notary of the holy Roman church, I have signed below with my own hand. I sincerely offer it on this altar N. to you, almighty God, with a pure mind and a devout conscience, in the presence of the following. Made etc.

[That prelates may not be translated without their consent]

When prelates are translated, there is commonly both spiritual and temporal loss and damage of a grave nature for the churches from which they are transferred. The prelates, moreover, sometimes do not maintain the rights and liberties of their churches as carefully as they otherwise might, out of fear of being translated. The importunity of certain people who seek their own good, not that of Jesus Christ, may mean that the Roman pontiff is deceived in such a matter, as one ignorant of the facts, and so is easily led astray. We therefore determine and ordain, by this present decree, that henceforth bishops and superiors ought not to be translated unwillingly without a grave and reasonable cause which, after the person in question has been summoned, is to be inquired into and decided upon with the advice of the cardinals of the holy Roman church, or the greater part of them, and with their written endorsement. Lesser prelates, such as abbots and others with perpetual benefices, ought not to be changed, moved or deposed without a just and reasonable cause that has been inquired into.

We add, moreover, that for abbots to be changed the written endorsement of the cardinals is necessary--just as it is necessary for bishops, as has been said-saving, however, the constitutions and privileges of any churches, monasteries and orders.

[On spoils and procurations]

Papal reservations as well as the exacting and receiving of procurations which are due to ordinaries and other lesser prelates, by reason of a visitation, and of spoils on deceased prelates and other clerics, are seriously detrimental to churches, monasteries and other benefices and to churchmen. We therefore declare, by this present edict, that it is reasonable and in the public interest that reservations made by the pope, as well as exactions and collections of this kind made by collectors and others appointed or to be appointed by apostolic authority, are henceforth in no way to occur or to be attempted. Indeed, procurations of this kind, as well as spoils and the goods of any prelates found at their deaths, even if they are cardinals or members of the papal household or officials or any other clerics whatsoever, in the Roman curia or outside it, no matter where or when they die, are to belong to and to be received by, fully and freely, those persons to whom they would and ought to belong with the ending of the aforesaid reservations, mandates and exactions. We forbid the exaction of such spoils on prelates even inferior ones and others, which are outside and contrary to the form of common law. However, the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, beginning Praesenti, which was published with this specially in mind, is to remain in force.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2012, 08:51:48 PM »

Quote
With regard to the ecumenical nature of the sessions, there is dispute about those before the election of Martin V and also about the significance and force of the approval which he gave to the matters transacted by the council. The decrees notably those of sessions 3-5 and the decree Frequens (session 39), appear to proceed from the council's teaching. Objection has been made to them on the grounds of the primacy of the Roman pontiff. There is no doubt, however, that in enacting these decrees there was solicitude and care to choose the true and sure way ahead in order to heal the schism, and this could only be done by the authority of a council.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Not to go off on a tangent, but the idea that Lateran I,II,III,IV, Lyons I,II, Viene, and Constance were Ecumenical Councils was only introduced in the 16th century. Before that, Catholics were agreed that those 8 were General Councils, and that Florence had been the 9th Ecumenical Council (not the 17th).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2012, 08:58:24 PM »

Quote
With regard to the ecumenical nature of the sessions, there is dispute about those before the election of Martin V and also about the significance and force of the approval which he gave to the matters transacted by the council. The decrees notably those of sessions 3-5 and the decree Frequens (session 39), appear to proceed from the council's teaching. Objection has been made to them on the grounds of the primacy of the Roman pontiff. There is no doubt, however, that in enacting these decrees there was solicitude and care to choose the true and sure way ahead in order to heal the schism, and this could only be done by the authority of a council.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Not to go off on a tangent, but the idea that Lateran I,II,III,IV, Lyons I,II, Viene, and Constance were Ecumenical Councils was only introduced in the 16th century. Before that, Catholics were agreed that those 8 were General Councils, and that Florence had been the 9th Ecumenical Council (not the 17th).

Where did you derive a difference between General and Ecumenical?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2012, 09:34:23 PM »

Quote
With regard to the ecumenical nature of the sessions, there is dispute about those before the election of Martin V and also about the significance and force of the approval which he gave to the matters transacted by the council. The decrees notably those of sessions 3-5 and the decree Frequens (session 39), appear to proceed from the council's teaching. Objection has been made to them on the grounds of the primacy of the Roman pontiff. There is no doubt, however, that in enacting these decrees there was solicitude and care to choose the true and sure way ahead in order to heal the schism, and this could only be done by the authority of a council.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Not to go off on a tangent, but the idea that Lateran I,II,III,IV, Lyons I,II, Viene, and Constance were Ecumenical Councils was only introduced in the 16th century. Before that, Catholics were agreed that those 8 were General Councils, and that Florence had been the 9th Ecumenical Council (not the 17th).

Where did you derive a difference between General and Ecumenical?

I didn't. Rather, 16th century Catholics did away with the distinction.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,699


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2012, 10:52:07 PM »

Quote
With regard to the ecumenical nature of the sessions, there is dispute about those before the election of Martin V and also about the significance and force of the approval which he gave to the matters transacted by the council. The decrees notably those of sessions 3-5 and the decree Frequens (session 39), appear to proceed from the council's teaching. Objection has been made to them on the grounds of the primacy of the Roman pontiff. There is no doubt, however, that in enacting these decrees there was solicitude and care to choose the true and sure way ahead in order to heal the schism, and this could only be done by the authority of a council.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Not to go off on a tangent, but the idea that Lateran I,II,III,IV, Lyons I,II, Viene, and Constance were Ecumenical Councils was only introduced in the 16th century. Before that, Catholics were agreed that those 8 were General Councils, and that Florence had been the 9th Ecumenical Council (not the 17th).

Where did you derive a difference between General and Ecumenical?

I didn't. Rather, 16th century Catholics did away with the distinction.

To what end?
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.147 seconds with 55 queries.