OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 10:02:48 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: Ialmisry on Anti-Pope John XXIII  (Read 1090 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« on: February 22, 2013, 10:09:42 AM »

He meant John XXIII.
Although there have been more: the late supreme pontiff specifically took the XXIII to make the real Pope John XXIII (1410–1415) an "anti-pope" five centuries and a half after his papacy.


Quote
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....

(quote clipped as per forum policy)
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Western Schism

There's a lot to read in that paragraph (the last one on the page) but at present the most relevant portion is:

Quote
...
Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,585



« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 12:10:45 PM »

He meant John XXIII.
Although there have been more: the late supreme pontiff specifically took the XXIII to make the real Pope John XXIII (1410–1415) an "anti-pope" five centuries and a half after his papacy.


Quote
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....

(quote clipped as per forum policy)
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Western Schism

There's a lot to read in that paragraph (the last one on the page) but at present the most relevant portion is:

Quote
...
Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate.
So the supreme pontiff speaks infallibly on faith, morals and history.

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

The Vatican refuses to issue its official list of "supreme pontiffs" from the present occupant to its claimed predecessor, St. Peter, hence we need not pay attention to any protestation coming from its quarter on Pope John XXIII's legitimacy.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2013, 12:15:23 PM »

He meant John XXIII.
Although there have been more: the late supreme pontiff specifically took the XXIII to make the real Pope John XXIII (1410–1415) an "anti-pope" five centuries and a half after his papacy.


Quote
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....

(quote clipped as per forum policy)
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Western Schism

There's a lot to read in that paragraph (the last one on the page) but at present the most relevant portion is:

Quote
...
Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate.
So the supreme pontiff speaks infallibly on faith, morals and history.

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

The Vatican refuses to issue its official list of "supreme pontiffs" from the present occupant to its claimed predecessor, St. Peter, hence we need not pay attention to any protestation coming from its quarter on Pope John XXIII's legitimacy.
While there is an overlap between historical matters and faith issues, it is in virtue of the fact that validitiy/non-validity of the Papacy of the first John XXIII is a mtter of our faith, that the Pope can speak on it.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 12:22:27 PM »

While there is an overlap between historical matters and faith issues, it is in virtue of the fact that validitiy/non-validity of the Papacy of the first John XXIII is a mtter of our faith, that the Pope can speak on it.

So if the next Pope is a secret SSPX member, he can invalidate the Papacy of the last 5 Popes?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2013, 12:24:52 PM »

While there is an overlap between historical matters and faith issues, it is in virtue of the fact that validitiy/non-validity of the Papacy of the first John XXIII is a mtter of our faith, that the Pope can speak on it.

So if the next Pope is a secret SSPX member, he can invalidate the Papacy of the last 5 Popes?

The SSPX recognizes the pope. You're thinking of a sedevacantist group.
Logged


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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2013, 12:45:54 PM »

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

Actually, the key to the resolution was that both [Antipope] John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII resigned and authorized the Council of Constance to elect a new pope. That is to say, both sides could agree on the validity of the new pope, regardless of their disagreements about who had been pope before.

P.S. The Avignon line continued until 1429, so I guess it could be argued that the schism didn't really end until that year (rather than 1415).
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 12:49:06 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,577



« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2013, 01:08:09 PM »

He meant John XXIII.
Although there have been more: the late supreme pontiff specifically took the XXIII to make the real Pope John XXIII (1410–1415) an "anti-pope" five centuries and a half after his papacy.


Quote
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....

(quote clipped as per forum policy)
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Western Schism

There's a lot to read in that paragraph (the last one on the page) but at present the most relevant portion is:

Quote
...
Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate.
So the supreme pontiff speaks infallibly on faith, morals and history.

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

The Vatican refuses to issue its official list of "supreme pontiffs" from the present occupant to its claimed predecessor, St. Peter, hence we need not pay attention to any protestation coming from its quarter on Pope John XXIII's legitimacy.
While there is an overlap between historical matters and faith issues, it is in virtue of the fact that validitiy/non-validity of the Papacy of the first John XXIII is a mtter of our faith, that the Pope can speak on it.

But if we are able to determine the legitimacy of a papal claimant, this implies that the Roman Pontiff is subject to judgment. This, as Aristeides Papadakis points out, was a major canonical problem. No Roman Pontiff during the Great Schism was universally recognized as such. If an Ecumenical Synod were to be convened by one papal claimant, the synod would be impossible to recognize as ecumenical, as doing so would effectively pass judgment on the legitimacy of both papal claimants, yet both claimants could also not convene a synod together, as this would be to recognize that two popes are acting within the Church, contradicting the fact that there can only be one pope.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2013, 01:08:18 PM »

While there is an overlap between historical matters and faith issues, it is in virtue of the fact that validitiy/non-validity of the Papacy of the first John XXIII is a mtter of our faith, that the Pope can speak on it.

So if the next Pope is a secret SSPX member, he can invalidate the Papacy of the last 5 Popes?

The SSPX recognizes the pope. You're thinking of a sedevacantist group.

Potato, potah-tow
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 01:11:25 PM »

There are some other issues with the name of John in the list of popes in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm).  John XVI is only listed as an anti-pope, and there is no other John XVI.  And there is no John XX at all.  So maybe John XXIII should have been John XXI.

On a different note, wouldn't it have been interesting if ten popes had taken the name "Malcolm"?  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: 37,585



« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2013, 01:18:12 PM »

He meant John XXIII.
Although there have been more: the late supreme pontiff specifically took the XXIII to make the real Pope John XXIII (1410–1415) an "anti-pope" five centuries and a half after his papacy.


Quote
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....

(quote clipped as per forum policy)
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Western Schism

There's a lot to read in that paragraph (the last one on the page) but at present the most relevant portion is:

Quote
...
Moreover, the names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Benedict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate.
So the supreme pontiff speaks infallibly on faith, morals and history.

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

The Vatican refuses to issue its official list of "supreme pontiffs" from the present occupant to its claimed predecessor, St. Peter, hence we need not pay attention to any protestation coming from its quarter on Pope John XXIII's legitimacy.
While there is an overlap between historical matters and faith issues, it is in virtue of the fact that validitiy/non-validity of the Papacy of the first John XXIII is a mtter of our faith, that the Pope can speak on it.
much in the manner of Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth.
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: 37,585



« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2013, 01:23:50 PM »

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

Actually, the key to the resolution was that both [Antipope] John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII resigned and authorized the Council of Constance to elect a new pope. That is to say, both sides could agree on the validity of the new pope, regardless of their disagreements about who had been pope before.
Problem is that Pope John XXIII didn't resign: he was deposed by said council of Constance, which issued its definition Haec Sancta Synodus (which directly contradicts Pastor Aeternus of the council of Vatican I) and then replaced him with Pope Martin V.

P.S. The Avignon line continued until 1429, so I guess it could be argued that the schism didn't really end until that year (rather than 1415).
ah, that font of unity, the Roman Pontiff!
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: 6,122



« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2013, 02:27:24 PM »

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

Actually, the key to the resolution was that both [Antipope] John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII resigned and authorized the Council of Constance to elect a new pope. That is to say, both sides could agree on the validity of the new pope, regardless of their disagreements about who had been pope before.
Problem is that Pope John XXIII didn't resign: he was deposed by said council of Constance,

I'm a little rusty, but my understanding is that both John and Gregory XII cooperated with the council and resigned.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,585



« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2013, 04:44:54 PM »

As the present supreme pontiff (and the one at the time the imprimatur was put on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article) have a vested interest in de-legitimizing the rivals it claims as its episcopal lineage, the claim to be "able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially" is laughable on its face.  Particularly as the present line received its legitimacy from a council Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century) called.

Actually, the key to the resolution was that both [Antipope] John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII resigned and authorized the Council of Constance to elect a new pope. That is to say, both sides could agree on the validity of the new pope, regardless of their disagreements about who had been pope before.
Problem is that Pope John XXIII didn't resign: he was deposed by said council of Constance,

I'm a little rusty, but my understanding is that both John and Gregory XII cooperated with the council and resigned.
Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called (Gregory XII came in later) in the belief, that as Vatican believes, it could not operate without its supreme pontiff.

The council had other ideas:
Quote
Session 3—26 March 1415

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

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.

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.
Yet it still acknowledged Pope John XXIII as pope:
Quote
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.
even in its dogmatic definition of Haec Sancta Synodus:
Quote
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.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 04:52:44 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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,902


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 05:17:48 PM »

Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century)
And how do you reach the conclusion that Antipope John XXIII was legitimate?

The Vatican refuses to issue its official list of "supreme pontiffs" from the present occupant to its claimed predecessor, St. Peter, hence we need not pay attention to any protestation coming from its quarter on Pope John XXIII's legitimacy.
It is published every year in the Annuario Pontificio
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2013, 06:17:15 PM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,585



« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2013, 06:26:17 PM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.
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: 6,122



« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2013, 06:43:13 PM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.

Hey don't make me come over there!

But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2013, 08:38:03 AM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.

Hey don't make me come over there!

But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).

It is not possible since Vatican 1 says a council can not judge or depose the Pope, so, by vatican 1 criteria, John XXIII remained the true Pope, the council decision is invalid and so is his submission to anti Pope Martin V.



The root of ecclesiastical unity.  Shocked
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 08:38:32 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2013, 11:32:03 AM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.

Hey don't make me come over there!

But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).

It is not possible since Vatican 1 says a council can not judge or depose the Pope, so, by vatican 1 criteria, John XXIII remained the true Pope, the council decision is invalid and so is his submission to anti Pope Martin V.

I think we have gotten to the point of anti-Catholic-straw-grasping.

Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with (and I notice that you've given no argument to show that he was), it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,585



« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2013, 12:15:55 PM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.

Hey don't make me come over there!

But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).

It is not possible since Vatican 1 says a council can not judge or depose the Pope, so, by vatican 1 criteria, John XXIII remained the true Pope, the council decision is invalid and so is his submission to anti Pope Martin V.

I think we have gotten to the point of anti-Catholic-straw-grasping.
Is that a confession?
Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with (and I notice that you've given no argument to show that he was)
All claimants submitted to the council he called.
it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418.

The career of your supreme pontiff Benedict IX says otherwise: supreme pontiff once or 3x, depending on how you look at it.
The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire.
your supreme pontiff Boniface VIII taught otherwise.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 12:26:37 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2013, 01:00:25 PM »

I think we have gotten to the point of anti-Catholic-straw-grasping.
Is that a confession?

I'm a rabid anti-Catholic who's grasping at straws. That's a confession.  Tongue  Cheesy
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2013, 07:15:37 AM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.

Hey don't make me come over there!

But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).

It is not possible since Vatican 1 says a council can not judge or depose the Pope, so, by vatican 1 criteria, John XXIII remained the true Pope, the council decision is invalid and so is his submission to anti Pope Martin V.

I think we have gotten to the point of anti-Catholic-straw-grasping.

Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with (and I notice that you've given no argument to show that he was), it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire.

If he wasn't, then the Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope. The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"

So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 07:27:59 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2013, 10:04:47 AM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.

Hey don't make me come over there!

But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).

It is not possible since Vatican 1 says a council can not judge or depose the Pope, so, by vatican 1 criteria, John XXIII remained the true Pope, the council decision is invalid and so is his submission to anti Pope Martin V.

I think we have gotten to the point of anti-Catholic-straw-grasping.

Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with (and I notice that you've given no argument to show that he was), it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire.

If he wasn't, then the Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope. The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"

So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

Hmm ... I'm getting the impression that you didn't read what I put after the comma:

"Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with ... , it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire."

IOW, it only affects the ending-date of the schism.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,585



« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2013, 01:09:03 PM »

Pope John XXIII (the real one, in the 15th century)
And how do you reach the conclusion that Antipope John XXIII was legitimate?

The Vatican refuses to issue its official list of "supreme pontiffs" from the present occupant to its claimed predecessor, St. Peter, hence we need not pay attention to any protestation coming from its quarter on Pope John XXIII's legitimacy.
It is published every year in the Annuario Pontificio
and it keeps changing:
Quote
Until 1904, "Annuario Pontificio" listed Alexander V and John XXIII as popes. When Cardinal Rodrigo de Borja y Borja was elected pope in 1492, he chose the name Alexander VI although Alexander V had been elected in the Council of Pisa and therefore was not of the "Roman obedience".
http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/consistories-xv.htm
Quote
New historical research has prompted almost 200 corrections to the existing biographies of the Popes, from St. Peter to John Paul II.  The discoveries are included in the opening pages of the new edition of the "Pontifical Yearbook 2001," the "who´s who" of the Catholic Church published by the Vatican Press.
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/corrections-made-to-official-list-of-popes

By far not the only problem, which is why your supreme pontiff and his curia shy away from designating the AP list as official-can't keep plausible deniability that way (hence they they no longer number the list of names).  Pope Stephen II, for instance, disappeared after the 1961 edition.  Pope Adrian VI has also dropped out, although Pope Adrian VI remains.
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: 37,585



« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2013, 02:18:11 PM »

Pope John XXIII said he would, and then didn't, abandoning the council he called

Yes, I see what you mean. But again, that only affects (if anything) the ending-date of the schism. He submitted to Pope Martin V in 1418.
If he was the supreme pontiff, and Pastor Aeternus is true, there was no Pope Martin V to submit to.

Hey don't make me come over there!

But seriously, he submitted to Odo Colonna, who is generally thought to have already been Pope Martin V (or, conceivably, only became pope in 1418 -- or even in 1429, if you endorse the Avignon line).

It is not possible since Vatican 1 says a council can not judge or depose the Pope, so, by vatican 1 criteria, John XXIII remained the true Pope, the council decision is invalid and so is his submission to anti Pope Martin V.

I think we have gotten to the point of anti-Catholic-straw-grasping.

Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with (and I notice that you've given no argument to show that he was), it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire.

If he wasn't, then the Council that elected Martin V was not called by the Pope and was invalid, without authority to depose or elect any pope. The Council said:

"Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII"

So this Council thought him to be the Pope, i think they know better than you or me.

This council was summoned by John XXIII, the Pisan pope [1 ] , with the support of Emperor Sigismund....
 John XXIII and Benedict XIII were deposed by the council, Gregory XII voluntarily resigned. Then Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

So we have a council called by Pope john XXIII, a council that recognised John XXIII as the true Pope, and this same council deposed the true Pope. Fair enough.

But Vatican I says:

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that... nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon...they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

Hmm ... I'm getting the impression that you didn't read what I put after the comma:

"Even if John XXIII was a valid pope to begin with ... , it would follow that Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418. The fact is that Catholic teaching has never said that a pope cannot resign/retire."

IOW, it only affects the ending-date of the schism.
No, Napoletani has check mated you: if the council didn't have the authority to depose of Pope John XXIII, as Pastor Aeternus assets, it lacked the authority to make Odo Colonna Pope Martin V.  The deprivation of Pope John XXIII of his rightful throne and his subsequent imprisonment deprives any recognition of Odo Colonna as Pope Martin V by Pope John XXIII as "required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested" (CCC 332 §2), and also would further undermine the legitimacy of Odo Colonna, as a pope cannot make his successor pope-hence the reason why the conclave couldn't be called until Pope Benedict XVI of Rome officially left-which is what "would follow" if "Odo Colonna (Martin V) became pope in 1418."  Not to mention that Odo Colonna had not been even ordained a priest until after the council made him their supreme pontiff: was his ordination as bishop of Rome regularized in 1418?

That all claimants to the post of "supreme pontiff" submitted to the council Pope John XXIII affirms his legitimacy. He, however, never submitted to said council, so, per Pastor Aeternus, its actions against him are void.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 02:22:39 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
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 0.151 seconds with 53 queries.