I've said it before, the Pope in a political sense is the Prime Minister of the Kingdom.
I am curious about this. As a Prime Minister, he is subject to having 'no confidence' votes within his parliament and then potentially be replaced. He also cannot unilaterally implement legislation but certainly can get it started, but may have it defeated when debated.
The 'no confidence' vote is interesting, since it has happened before:http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/346coun.html
Decree Sacrosancta, 1415.
In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows:
- It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism
, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal
, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished
, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . .
This is how the medieval mess of three simultaneous popes was worked out within Catholicism.
Before someone comes in here arguing that this Decree was not considered Ecumenical, the following information applies:http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm
"...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."
The above decree is from Session 4.
Getting back to your quote... do you agree that all popes ashould be subject to the decisions of Councils?