OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 06:27:47 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 2 3 4 5 6 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ex cathedra  (Read 9561 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« on: August 14, 2013, 11:05:43 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 11:25:53 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,263


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2013, 11:31:33 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
It seems that Pope John Paul II did when he said that the Church cannot ordain women.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2013, 11:37:46 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
Technically, Ex Cathedra does not exist, therefore the pope has never spoken Ex Cathedra.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 11:38:31 PM by pmpn8rGPT » Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2013, 11:43:11 PM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2013, 11:45:48 PM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.
Logged
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2013, 11:49:18 PM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
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: 37,963



« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:11 AM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.
Unfortunately, they have no means to elect that non-heretical supreme pontiff.  All the "real" cardinals are dead.
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
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2013, 01:16:43 AM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.

Unfortunately, they have no means to elect that non-heretical supreme pontiff.  All the "real" cardinals are dead.

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
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: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2013, 01:20:58 AM »

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed
I have heard this before, but never understood it's meaning.

Sedevacantists are one of a few groups that believe the Vatican II council to be a heresy, hence the Popes that followed Pope Pius XII were illegitimate.  "Sede vacante" is Latin for "the seat being vacant," that is, the seat of Peter is empty until a non-heretical Pope is elected.

Unfortunately, they have no means to elect that non-heretical supreme pontiff.  All the "real" cardinals are dead.

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.
Unfortunately the rules under which they elected their supreme pontiff John XXIV (although he said XXIII) mandates otherwise.
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
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2013, 01:22:00 AM »

It seems Vatican II gets a lot of attention.  Was there less of a problem prior to this?
Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2013, 06:03:06 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: I don't mean to brag but...
Jurisdiction: I've been in an Antiochian church.
Posts: 627


My grandfather's uncle, Boris Half-Ear


« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2013, 06:04:55 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.
Logged

ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2013, 07:52:35 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
It seems that Pope John Paul II did when he said that the Church cannot ordain women.

Not to open the can of worms on the subject matter, but Humanae Vitae is also ex cathedra according to most.

I would argue that many, many more papal pronouncements are ex cathedra because the marker is basically the pope defining something on faith and morals for the universal Church and saying it must be believed. You find the key language in many papal writings. Unfortunately, though, many of these have been contradicted later, so there's an effort to now say they weren't ex cathedra.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2013, 08:01:46 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
It seems that Pope John Paul II did when he said that the Church cannot ordain women.

Not to open the can of worms on the subject matter, but Humanae Vitae is also ex cathedra according to most.

I would argue that many, many more papal pronouncements are ex cathedra because the marker is basically the pope defining something on faith and morals for the universal Church and saying it must be believed. You find the key language in many papal writings. Unfortunately, though, many of these have been contradicted later, so there's an effort to now say they weren't ex cathedra.

What kind of things?  If possible, could you be specific?  I ask because I dont know.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2013, 08:07:51 AM »

Previous popes have defined the evils of false ecumenism, instructing the people that it was sinful to worship with non-Catholics. Also, popes have defined the necessity of submission to the pope for salvation. These things seem contradicted by later conciliar statements and actions of the more recent popes.

Popes have defined the evils of socialism, more recent popes have written documents that seem to support aspects of socialism.

These are the things that are very controversial in Catholicism. It gets a little confusing because there are different levels of teaching to which are owed different levels of belief or deference by Catholics.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:11:18 AM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2013, 08:13:20 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican II, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:38:02 AM by Eurasian » Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2013, 08:19:31 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2013, 08:29:57 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

As far as I can tell, the conditions upon which a pope speaks ex cathedra are not specified by Vatican I.   E.g., the Monotheletism (and subsequent anathematization) of Pope Honorious is not denied, but that he ever taught it ex cathedra is denied.  Upon the layman's understanding of papal infallibility (the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching heresy), this should not happen.  Since we do not know when ex cathedra obtains, though, we cannot know whether Pope Honorious spoke ex cathedra or not.  This leaves us with the bizarre situation in which a pope may teach heresy throughout his whole career, yet never be said to have violated papal infallibility.  (Would those who are more learned correct me?)
Logged
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2013, 08:30:19 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

I'm not sure about the pope having declared papal infallibility ex cathedra. This dogma was declared by the First Vatican Council, which defined (and circumscribed) infallibility of papal declarations in such way, that quite a bit of debate is possible over which statements share in the ex cathedra infallibility. I think the Assumption of Mary is at present the only truly undisputable instance of the pope speaking ex cathedra. The Immaculate Conception is also widely accepted as such. Personally, I agree with Papist that John Paul II phrased his teaching on female ordination so as to meet the requirements for infallibility set out by Vatican I.
Logged
Eurasian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2013, 08:32:58 AM »

As far as I can tell, the conditions upon which a pope speaks ex cathedra are not specified by Vatican I.   E.g., the Monotheletism (and subsequent anathematization) of Pope Honorious is not denied, but that he ever taught it ex cathedra is denied.  Upon the layman's understanding of papal infallibility (the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching heresy), this should not happen.  Since we do not know when ex cathedra obtains, though, we cannot know whether Pope Honorious spoke ex cathedra or not.  This leaves us with the bizarre situation in which a pope may teach heresy throughout his whole career, yet never be said to have violated papal infallibility.  (Would those who are more learned correct me?)

Papal teaching is ex cathedra, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church". Vatican I, Session 4, chapter 4.9. For an online text, see http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6

I agree with you that this leaves a lot of room for debate over which statements are to be considered infallible.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:34:30 AM by Eurasian » Logged
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2013, 08:35:56 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2013, 09:07:26 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
How would (or could) the Roman Church fix this [problem]?
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2013, 09:11:39 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 09:12:20 AM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2013, 09:12:23 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
How would (or could) the Roman Church fix this [problem]?
I'm sorry....I  think I may have misunderstood what you are asking.

Scrapping Vatican II and the new mass would be a good start.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 09:13:21 AM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2013, 09:35:13 AM »

I think the idea is that they can become "real" cardinals by renouncing V2.

For quite a few sedevacantists, the problem is even more serious. After Vatican II, the ritual of the sacrament of ordination has been changed. According to some (if not many) sedevacantists, this rendered the sacrament of orders invalid (not just illicit) - meaning an increasing number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are supposedly invalidly ordained. This cannot be 'healed' by the bishop renouncing Vatican 2, for that would not render the ordination retroactively valid. The issue is not just that the bishops hold a wrong theology, but that true apostolic succession is (allegedly) disappearing from the Roman Catholic Church.

Good point. The fact that sedevacantists are so hung up on papal infallibility as to deny a pope is a real pope instead of coming to the much more logical conclusion that the pope isn't infallible is amazing to me. It's all the more amazing because many of them seem to be very educated and logical people with good hearts.

You absolutely nailed it here. I am a member of another Catholic forum and keep up on the convos regarding these issues. It seems that so many will make peace with contradiction but suggest to them that perhaps Orthodoxy is the Truth or that the Roman church erred and you will be shown the door. No amount of historical or theological evidence will sway those who don't want to face reality. I actually had a sedevacantist tell me not to trust my logic but simply accept the mysterious eclipse of the roman church as a precursor to some grand restoration.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
How would (or could) the Roman Church fix this [problem]?
I'm sorry....I  think I may have misunderstood what you are asking.

Scrapping Vatican II and the new mass would be a good start.

I have heard many Catholics, to include younger Catholics, suggest this very thing.

EDIT:  I shouldn't have said many, instead I should have said many of the Catholics I personally know.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 09:58:08 AM by Kerdy » 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: 37,963



« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2013, 09:54:11 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?
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
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2013, 10:07:37 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

I don't even think that those on the far sides of the spectrum have in common the fealty to the Pope. But, remarkably, merely saying they do is enough.

On the whole, though, for the vast majority of Catholics, what they have in common is only submission to the Pope. Of course, they don't agree on what that submission entails.

In a perfect world, I guess, there would be an agreement on the faith, but the Eastern Catholics on this forum have demonstrated this isn't the case as far as I can tell... But that's another issue, I guess.

I describe this current idea of communion as a merely visible communion instead of a union of the faith. And even the visible communion isn't always expressed in a common way since, again, you can have a bishop say a Solemn High Mass one week and a clown Mass the next. I think these evidence a different theology, but Rome apparently doesn't see the conflict.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
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: 37,963



« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2013, 10:19:33 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

I don't even think that those on the far sides of the spectrum have in common the fealty to the Pope. But, remarkably, merely saying they do is enough.

On the whole, though, for the vast majority of Catholics, what they have in common is only submission to the Pope. Of course, they don't agree on what that submission entails.

In a perfect world, I guess, there would be an agreement on the faith, but the Eastern Catholics on this forum have demonstrated this isn't the case as far as I can tell... But that's another issue, I guess.

I describe this current idea of communion as a merely visible communion instead of a union of the faith. And even the visible communion isn't always expressed in a common way since, again, you can have a bishop say a Solemn High Mass one week and a clown Mass the next. I think these evidence a different theology, but Rome apparently doesn't see the conflict.
Of course not: their bishop of Rome has said ex cathedra that there is nothing to see, so it must be true.
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2013, 10:43:03 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2013, 10:44:15 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 10:46:57 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2013, 10:56:35 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2013, 11:09:09 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2013, 11:16:00 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A or B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe in Immaculate conception  for an example. Those that doubt the real presence, or deny the truth of the sacrament of confession etc. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the point being made. Such things will always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However lets not exaggerate the situation and make it seem as if the acts of the minority are the general happenings in the Catholic Church. Its not like there are clown masses in every second church now... Roll Eyes These things are the actions of a few.

 Unity of faith is reality. I can attest to this from personal experience  where at the local Maronite church, we (Roman and Maronite) commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church. We are brethren of the same flock
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 11:34:22 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2013, 11:19:55 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2013, 11:34:41 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A ot B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe un Immaculate conception  for an example. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the logic of my argument and the point being made. Such things wil always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However unity of faith is general reality. I can attest to this at local level where at the local maronite church, we commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church.

Again, I think this response is great in theory, but I'm not certain it bears out in reality. If the pope is taking part in festivities with dancing bishops or voodoo priests or whatever, do you believe the same thing as the pope?  This is much more than a local priest who is a little heretical.  In taking about the idea that the church is basically reinvented with the advent of each new Pope these days because the popes have set themselves over tradition (of course, the actual tradition is that they can't do that, so they're simultaneously breaking that tradition also).

If I believe it is sinful to participate in non-catholic worship, which the church taught for a long time, I am at odds with the current teaching and example of the popes and bishops, and they are at odds with their predecessors.

In sum, yes, there will airways be those that are heretics and at odds with the faith at the local level. It is when these errors are approved at the hierarchical level that there is a problem. The disconnect is that the Catholic Church of history and theological manuals isn't the Catholic Church as experienced in reality, both locally and globally. For me, this realization has been perplexing because I am a convert to Catholicism because of my study (and I was at a decent parish). After moving and traveling more, I have seen that there is no universality as I had been led to believe by my study - it is completely haphazard, which led me to ask how this communion is meaningful when the faith isn't shared (this was brought home clearly when I went to a "mass" where the priest had all the kids come hug him and then stand in a circle around the table during the Liturgy of the Faithful -- these people clearly do not believe what I believe(d?) And this was rampant in that diocese).

/endofrant
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2013, 11:40:13 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel, paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.
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: 37,963



« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2013, 06:41:56 PM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith
Sorry, I've been close up to the "American Catholic Church" to know to not take that answer seriously-unless lip service to the supreme pontiff and papolatry constitute the same thing.
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: 37,963



« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2013, 06:42:39 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel[s ], paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.
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: 37,963



« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2013, 06:45:29 PM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A or B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe in Immaculate conception  for an example. Those that doubt the real presence, or deny the truth of the sacrament of confession etc. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the point being made. Such things will always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However lets not exaggerate the situation and make it seem as if the acts of the minority are the general happenings in the Catholic Church. Its not like there are clown masses in every second church now... Roll Eyes These things are the actions of a few.

 Unity of faith is reality. I can attest to this from personal experience  where at the local Maronite church, we (Roman and Maronite) commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church. We are brethren of the same flock
Given the heavy Latinization of the Maronites, we know where that unity comes from.
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
DanM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 249


« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2013, 07:53:04 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel, paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.

When I look at my text, it is not crossed out, but when posted, most of what I wrote is crossed out.  Can anyone correct this?  Thanks.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2013, 08:37:43 PM »

When you wrote the word "sequel(s)" you used brackets around the s, which is the code for striking text out, so that everything that followed had a line through it Smiley

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel(s), paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:38:30 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 37,963



« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2013, 10:22:38 PM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?

The pope infallibly declared himself infallible.....

I always found that a little curious.

The circle is after all the most structurally sound of all two dimensional shapes.

The First Vatican Council defined Papal Infallibility. It was not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra that defined it.

How could the council have defined papal infallibility unless it was itself infallible?  I mean this seriously and not in jest.

That is general belief about ecumenical councils. Their decrees are infallible and binding on all the faithful.

The wonderful Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), which is so much better than its sequel, paints a different picture.  "The primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church[;] it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope."  This picture is what I recall from my long-ago Roman holiday.  To claim that an ecumenical council is infallible when it declares the pope to be infallible on the condition that "papal approbation" gives "ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees" is apparently circular.

Reverting to Monothelitism, if supporters of infallibility claim that Pope Honorius did not dogmatize Monothelitism, they should remember that (in the words of the CE of 1911) "the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative" and that "papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees."  Granted that Honorius did not specifically dogmatize Monothelitism, he nevertheless exercised the right of presidency through his representative (the only way popes participated in the seven ecumenical councils), so that he must be stuck with the charge of heresy.  Furthermore, his approbation of the synod at Cyprus gave "ecumenical value and authority" to the conciliar decree favoring Monothelitism.

When I look at my text, it is not crossed out, but when posted, most of what I wrote is crossed out.  Can anyone correct this?  Thanks.
Btw, it is from the "s" you have in brackets in "sequel[s ]" which I corrected by putting a space after the "s."

Ooops.  Now I see that Aristektos explained all.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 10:24:41 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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2013, 11:33:48 PM »

This is one of those questions where you will never get a definitive (i.e., ex cathedra) answer.  Grin
Logged

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

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2013, 11:58:12 PM »

This is one of those questions where you will never get a definitive (i.e., ex cathedra) answer.  Grin
Apparently.  I'm sorry I asked.  I'm even more sorry people can't just provide an answer without all the Flying Fists of TheologyFu.  It's almost as if people rather argue than actually learn.  It gets a little old after awhile.

I suppose I'll just have to ask all my Catholic questions to an actual Catholic priest if I want any sincere clarification.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 12:00:28 AM by Kerdy » 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: 37,963



« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2013, 12:09:17 AM »

This is one of those questions where you will never get a definitive (i.e., ex cathedra) answer.  Grin
Apparently.  I'm sorry I asked.  I'm even more sorry people can't just provide an answer without all the Flying Fists of TheologyFu.  It's almost as if people rather argue than actually learn.  It gets a little old after awhile.

I suppose I'll just have to ask all my Catholic questions to an actual Catholic priest if I want any sincere clarification.
Apotheoun gave you the correct answer.  You may not like the answer, and the followers of the Vatican might deny the answer, but that doesn't change the truth, that it is the answer to your question. Munticentissimus Deus, the declaration on the Assumption (i.e. today), is the only one they agree on.

Somewhere here we went into some detail about the different calculations of various theologians and apologists for the Vatican over how many times their supreme pontiffs have spoken "ex cathedra."
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 12:10:28 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,779


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2013, 12:37:45 AM »

When I look at my text, it is not crossed out, but when posted, most of what I wrote is crossed out.  Can anyone correct this?  Thanks.

LOL, what a day.  I thought you were just being heavily sarcastic.  I laughed! 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: I don't mean to brag but...
Jurisdiction: I've been in an Antiochian church.
Posts: 627


My grandfather's uncle, Boris Half-Ear


« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2013, 12:40:24 AM »

When I look at my text, it is not crossed out, but when posted, most of what I wrote is crossed out.  Can anyone correct this?  Thanks.

LOL, what a day.  I thought you were just being heavily sarcastic.  I laughed! 

I was a little disappointed when it turned out to be otherwise.
Logged

lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2013, 01:10:19 AM »

As Orthodox Christians, we cross everything.

...

EVERYTHING. Shocked
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 01:10:29 AM by lovesupreme » Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2013, 01:34:31 AM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A or B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe in Immaculate conception  for an example. Those that doubt the real presence, or deny the truth of the sacrament of confession etc. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the point being made. Such things will always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However lets not exaggerate the situation and make it seem as if the acts of the minority are the general happenings in the Catholic Church. Its not like there are clown masses in every second church now... Roll Eyes These things are the actions of a few.

 Unity of faith is reality. I can attest to this from personal experience  where at the local Maronite church, we (Roman and Maronite) commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church. We are brethren of the same flock
Given the heavy Latinization of the Maronites, we know where that unity comes from.

LOL this is a pathetic answer. There is always an excuse for you. By this standard a lot of orthodoxy is in false unity of faith given the major byzantinization of eastern orthodoxy (e.g, Antiochans).

Secondly the unity of faith for most Catholics is felt. I'm sorry about your experience but again lets not make the minority the general happenings as we know that's not the case. FYI the Catholic Church isn't only in America Wink

The truth will remain the truth. Faith us what unites us as Catholics. You can argue until your face us blue but that's the truth no matter how much you hate it.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 01:36:51 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,619



« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2013, 01:53:34 AM »

LOL this is a pathetic answer. There is always an excuse for you. By this standard a lot of orthodoxy is in false unity of faith given the major byzantinization of eastern orthodoxy (e.g, Antiochans).

Had you studied liturgical history a bit, you would know that this is untrue. The Liturgical Customs of the Great Church of Constantinople (please, let us not call it such a crude term as the 'Byzantine Rite', for I know not what a 'Byzantine' is supposed to be), effected a sort of synthesis between the different typica of the East (a mongrel, in the words of Fr. Taft). The Melkite Christians in the East rather voluntarily changed their liturgical usages over time in order to match the liturgical usages of the Great Church. The difference between the two situations is in fact quite vast, for while the Great Church incorporated many aspects of other rites into its own liturgical synthesis, the relationship of the Maronites to the Latins was quite one-sided, if not inorganic.

The truth will remain the truth. Faith us what unites us as Catholics. You can argue until your face us blue but that's the truth no matter how much you hate it.

I think it is understandable that we might have our reservations about this, when we see the vast difference between what the Melkites believe, what the Latins believe, what the Chaldeans believe, etc. That the Latin Church is in communion with both Copts and Chaldeans (while affirming their right to retain their traditional Christologies) is perhaps somewhat telling.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2013, 02:14:06 AM »

Below is a link to a brief article on the "Romanization" of the Maronite Rite:

Maronite Rite: History of Romanization
Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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: 37,963



« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2013, 01:44:21 PM »

I don't think the church sees sedevacantists as a problem in need of fixing, honestly. It's a small group of people.

The Roman Church seems content to continue liberalizing (whatever that means), so I think it's content to leave Traditionalists behind. BUT, I think the Church does see itself as a "big tent" where traditionalists and charismatics can co-exist so long as each says they're loyal to the Pope. The communion, then, is based on fealty to the Pope and not shared liturgy or faith. I think that's the way it's heading but others will surely disagree with that assessment.
It comes down to that, all the while we are told by those loyal to their supreme pontiff, that the papacy isn't the totality of their church.  What else do you have in common?

Faith

This is a good answer, but I wonder how true it is... Is it the case that those in the FSSP believe the same as those dancing bishops in Rio?  Does my priest who quoted Hindu texts last Sunday during his homily believe the same as Pius XII who said the Apostolic See never allowed its children to partake in non-Catholic assemblies?  How about the neo-catechumenal way and the Popes of the Assisi meetings: would any Pope have agreed with this before?  Does this not evidence a huge difference in the Faith?  And sure, one could argue that the Faith is still the same but pastorally changed... I respond that if one believes now what the church taught for the past 500 years, that makes one canonically irregular at best (see the SSPX).

Anyway, that's off topic so I'll cease...

Faith is shared by All Churches of the Catholic Church. At local level there will always be those who dissent from the faith, those who teach heresy, those who disregard doctrine for whatever reason or don't believe doctrine A or B, those who disrespect the liturgy by having Mass filled with abuses and absurd behavior. All in all such deviations by certain people and groups at local level exist in EVERY RELIGION and DENOMINATION even Orthodoxy. There are those who claim to be Orthodox but believe in Immaculate conception  for an example. Those that doubt the real presence, or deny the truth of the sacrament of confession etc. Does this now mean Eastern Orthodoxy is not united in faith? I think you see the point being made. Such things will always exist as Satan works hard to break down Gods Church.

However lets not exaggerate the situation and make it seem as if the acts of the minority are the general happenings in the Catholic Church. Its not like there are clown masses in every second church now... Roll Eyes These things are the actions of a few.

 Unity of faith is reality. I can attest to this from personal experience  where at the local Maronite church, we (Roman and Maronite) commune together and believe and teach the same doctrines. We are all catholic and share the one faith of the Catholic Church. We are brethren of the same flock
Given the heavy Latinization of the Maronites, we know where that unity comes from.
LOL this is a pathetic answer.
It's a rather pathetic case.

I've been to Maronite churches in the Middle East-let alone the West-that struck me as little different from Italian churches (where I have also been).

There is always an excuse for you.

I don't deal in excuses, only reasons.  That the Vatican has a need for the former because it cannot justify itself by the latter isn't my problem.

By this standard a lot of orthodoxy is in false unity of faith given the major byzantinization of eastern orthodoxy (e.g, Antiochans).
Cavardossi answered this for the most part (though there was some measure towards the end of involuntary actions among the Antiochians: but then they had set up the rites of Constantinople in the first place).

The Antiochians do not have to commemorate another Patriarch other than there own in each and every DL, for instance, unlike the Maronites.  Nor can a sole bishop appeal over the Patriarch and the Holy Synod to another patriarch-as one did when the issue of married clergy abroad came up among the Maronites.

The Antichochian Orthodox shared the same Faith as Constantinople long before the former adopted the rites of the latter. The Maronites integration into the Vatican's communion went in tandem with its Latinization.

Secondly the unity of faith for most Catholics is felt. I'm sorry about your experience but again lets not make the minority the general happenings as we know that's not the case. FYI the Catholic Church isn't only in America Wink
Yes, we are everywhere: I myself have been in all the ancient Pentarchy and 11 out of the 15 Autocephalous churches.

As for the Vatican, FYI I've been there, and its churches on three continents (four, if Europe counts as separate).  You want to talk about your Dutch correligionists?

The truth will remain the truth.
Sure will-we celebrate that every Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

Faith us what unites us as Catholics.
Sure does.  We do not need to commemorate a supreme pontiff at every Divine Liturgy, from whom our bishops must have their "faculties" renewed, for that.

You can argue until your face us blue but that's the truth no matter how much you hate it.
I only hate falsehood.
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2013, 03:57:19 PM »

I myself have been in all the ancient Pentarchy and 11 out of the 15 Autocephalous churches.

I only in 5.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 37,963



« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2013, 08:37:39 PM »

I myself have been in all the ancient Pentarchy and 11 out of the 15 Autocephalous churches.

I only in 5.
I've been around a bit longer.
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
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #54 on: August 16, 2013, 08:42:34 PM »

I've only been to two different Orthodox churches.

Come to think of it, I've been to more Roman Catholic churches. Shocked

Watch someone use this anecdote as proof of the true catholicity of Rome. Tongue
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2013, 11:53:31 AM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

But your first part is quite correct: there's no consensus (even among Roman Catholics). There's no official list of ex cathedra statements ... there could be 2 (that's the popular number to quote among laypeople) or thousands, or none, or your favorite number. (I guess for the nerds reading this I should say "your favorite non-negative integer". Although even that could be problematic too, if someone said "My favorite non-negative integer is a google.")
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 17, 2013, 12:12:29 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

But your first part is quite correct: there's no consensus (even among Roman Catholics). There's no official list of ex cathedra statements ... there could be 2 (that's the popular number to quote among laypeople) or thousands, or none, or your favorite number. (I guess for the nerds reading this I should say "your favorite non-negative integer". Although even that could be problematic too, if someone said "My favorite non-negative integer is a google.")
Yes. Bishop Gasser at Vatican I said that, "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See," but it does seem like a rather useless thing if it is not possible to tell what is or is not ex cathedra. It really is hard to see how it helps to make anything definitive if no one can actually agree about what statements are definitive.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 12:12:42 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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: 37,963



« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2013, 12:35:31 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.
So you say.

But who are you?

Here is the real Roman Catholic bishop in Rome:


But your first part is quite correct: there's no consensus (even among Roman Catholics). There's no official list of ex cathedra statements ... there could be 2 (that's the popular number to quote among laypeople) or thousands, or none, or your favorite number. (I guess for the nerds reading this I should say "your favorite non-negative integer". Although even that could be problematic too, if someone said "My favorite non-negative integer is a google.")
pretty much defeats the purpose of Vatican I, if Vatican II didn't do that.
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2013, 12:41:29 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

But your first part is quite correct: there's no consensus (even among Roman Catholics). There's no official list of ex cathedra statements ... there could be 2 (that's the popular number to quote among laypeople) or thousands, or none, or your favorite number. (I guess for the nerds reading this I should say "your favorite non-negative integer". Although even that could be problematic too, if someone said "My favorite non-negative integer is a google.")
Yes. Bishop Gasser at Vatican I said that, "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See," but it does seem like a rather useless thing if it is not possible to tell what is or is not ex cathedra. It really is hard to see how it helps to make anything definitive if no one can actually agree about what statements are definitive.

That is its sheer brilliance.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2013, 01:11:35 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.



Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.


Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #60 on: August 17, 2013, 01:18:15 PM »

The Orthodox have been sedevacantists for a thousand years. If people want the real deal, they need to join the Society of St. Pius I, the only pious Pius.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 17, 2013, 01:19:54 PM »

The Orthodox have been sedevacantists for a thousand years. If people want the real deal, they need to join the Society of St. Pius I, the only pious Pius.
And the Orthodox are Catholic.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #62 on: August 17, 2013, 01:24:21 PM »

The Orthodox have been sedevacantists for a thousand years. If people want the real deal, they need to join the Society of St. Pius I, the only pious Pius.
And the Orthodox are Catholic.

Exactly. The true Roman Catholics, unlike those "Roman Catholics" who pretend to be so, but are neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #63 on: August 17, 2013, 01:30:19 PM »

The Orthodox have been sedevacantists for a thousand years. If people want the real deal, they need to join the Society of St. Pius I, the only pious Pius.
And the Orthodox are Catholic.

Exactly. The true Roman Catholics, unlike those "Roman Catholics" who pretend to be so, but are neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church.
I am deeply offended by your politically incorrect comment. Not really. Grin
Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #64 on: August 17, 2013, 01:35:47 PM »

The Orthodox have been sedevacantists for a thousand years. If people want the real deal, they need to join the Society of St. Pius I, the only pious Pius.

Orthodox.....Sedevacantists before is was cool.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #65 on: August 17, 2013, 01:47:08 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #66 on: August 17, 2013, 01:57:54 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 17, 2013, 02:07:04 PM »

I think that Sedevacantists are Roman Catholics. They're just not Roman Catholics in good standing (i.e., in full communion with Rome). I have no doubt - even though there are not many of them - that Rome would like them to come back into the fold, much like the SSPX.
Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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: 37,963



« Reply #68 on: August 17, 2013, 03:19:55 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.
Is that Ex Cathedra?
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: 6,147



« Reply #69 on: August 17, 2013, 03:40:44 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.
Is that Ex Cathedra?

No. And thank you for trying to bring us back on topic. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #70 on: August 17, 2013, 03:54:06 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,619



« Reply #71 on: August 17, 2013, 04:17:22 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
If a bishop publicly preaches heresy, it is the duty of every Christian not to accept communion with that bishop. Of course, the Sedevacantists take this a step further and claim that any pope who preaches heresy ceases to be a pope, and that all of the popes since <insert Pope here> (they can't agree on which pope it is), has been an anti-pope.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #72 on: August 17, 2013, 04:24:02 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)

That's just it. They don't believe the popes are actually popes. To refuse to be in communion with your lawful superior is schism. If you don't actually believe the man who claims the title is who he says he is.....that's a different matter.

The SSPX (where I went for 4+ years) fit the definition of schism since they give lip service to the pope and bishops but refuse to have anything to do with them.

Are you of the Vatican 2, Catholic Answers, John Paul II the greatest pope ever variety of Catholic? I'm interested in where you are coming from.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 04:24:32 PM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #73 on: August 17, 2013, 04:26:37 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
If a bishop publicly preaches heresy, it is the duty of every Christian not to accept communion with that bishop. Of course, the Sedevacantists take this a step further and claim that any pope who preaches heresy ceases to be a pope, and that all of the popes since <insert Pope here> (they can't agree on which pope it is), has been an anti-pope.

You are correct. It's really quite simple, as far as the sedevacantist argument goes. You can't be the head of something you are not even a member of. Since the post Vatican 2 popes have publicly professed heresy (according to sedevacantists) they aren't even Catholic.....let alone the head of the Church.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 04:26:52 PM by #1Sinner » Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #74 on: August 17, 2013, 04:32:40 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
If a bishop publicly preaches heresy, it is the duty of every Christian not to accept communion with that bishop. Of course, the Sedevacantists take this a step further and claim that any pope who preaches heresy ceases to be a pope, and that all of the popes since <insert Pope here> (they can't agree on which pope it is), has been an anti-pope.

Yes I know this already. This is their position and true in theory. The reality is what matters though. The Popes aren't in heresy and a group claiming to be Catholic can't be catholic when not in communion with the bishop of that Church (who is orthodox). That is why they are not Catholic.

Every heretic and schismatic needs some sort of justification for their position to remain in said position. So too the sedevancists must believe the Popes have fallen and continue to be in heresy. Just as the Arians went off believing they were orthodox, just like the nestorians and monophosites etc. Same devil, new dress.

However I'm just here to present the catholic position  angel
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 04:45:04 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #75 on: August 17, 2013, 04:40:06 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
If a bishop publicly preaches heresy, it is the duty of every Christian not to accept communion with that bishop. Of course, the Sedevacantists take this a step further and claim that any pope who preaches heresy ceases to be a pope, and that all of the popes since <insert Pope here> (they can't agree on which pope it is), has been an anti-pope.

You are correct. It's really quite simple, as far as the sedevacantist argument goes. You can't be the head of something you are not even a member of. Since the post Vatican 2 popes have publicly professed heresy (according to sedevacantists) they aren't even Catholic.....let alone the head of the Church.

Peter and I are just explaining why they are not Catholic despite them claiming to be so...
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 04:43:39 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,779


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 17, 2013, 04:55:24 PM »

But of course many on this site will root for them because " of my enemy..."

Oh, I don't know.  I think sedevacantists embrace "Orthodox" ecclesiological principles to advance their arguments, but they are still fundamentally Roman Catholic.  That they believe the Pope to be a heretic and therefore not a Pope doesn't change the fact that they would only recognise as a Roman Catholic (and thus a member of the "true Church") someone who believes many of the things we reject as heterodox innovations(e.g., papal infallibility, Filioque, etc.).  To use your analogy, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy, and in an ideological sense perhaps moreso than the current crop of "legitimate" RC's.    
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 37,963



« Reply #77 on: August 17, 2013, 05:02:11 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with?

(Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it
Quote
The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.
The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false
On St. Cyprian, consider his translation of the letter of Firmilian into Latin:

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian's letter for Rome shows that:

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Arbp.] Stephen [of Old Rome], that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity...
24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all[/u]; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

On that:
I am seeking independent verification of information contained in an Orthodox encyclical

The encyclical in question is
"Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

In it they say...

"...witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used."

I have looked at the cite www.ccel.org which gives documents by Church Fathers.

The 48th epistle by Basil begins...
Letter XLVIII.

To Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata.

I have had considerable difficulty in finding a messenger to convey a letter to your reverence, for our men are so afraid of the winter that they can hardly bear even to put their heads outside their houses.  We have suffered from such a very heavy fall of snow that we have been buried, houses and all, beneath it, and now for two months have been living in dens and caves.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xlix.html

Am I missing something regarding the reference (Ep. 48 Athan.)?

Also, I can't find the letter sent by the second ecumenical council to 'the west'



My best guess is that it is this epistle which Basil wrote to Athanasius, which is being referenced: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

In it he writes:
Quote
No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch?  Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body.  Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy.

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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #78 on: August 17, 2013, 05:37:36 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with?

(Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
Cyprian the Bishop By J. Patout Burns
http://books.google.com/books?id=egbXJlUgAW8C&pg=PA158&dq=cyprian+all+bishops+successors+peter&hl=en#v=onepage&q=cyprian%20all%20bishops%20successors%20peter&f=false
As he put it
Quote
The doctrine of St. Cyprian upon the point before us is extremely full and clear from many passages of his treatises and epistles. A remarkable passage from the treatise "de Unitate Ecclesiae," has been quoted above, in which he says plainly, that "Christ gave to all the Apostles equal authority," and that "all the other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal participation of honour and power."

In other places he says, "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord on Peter." This doctrine is thus repeated in the Epistle of Cornelius to St. Cyprian: "Nor are we ignorant that there is one God, one Christ, the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, that there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church." This assertion, which at the first sight might seem to favour the modern claims of the Roman see, is thus interpreted in the treatise "de Unitate:" "The Episcopate is one; of which every individual (Bishop) participates possessing it entire. And again, elsewhere: "From Christ there is one Church, divided throughout the whole world into many members; and one Episcopate, diffused by the 'concordant numerosity' of many Bishops'." Thus the Episcopate is "single and indivisible," but held in equal truth and fulness by many. All alike hold under the promise made to St. Peter'. That promise was addressed to him personally, "to manifest unity;" but in him, was addressed alike to all. There are many shepherds, but the flock is one; in order that if any member of our college (Bishops) endeavour to make heresy, and tear the flock of Christ, the rest may assist, and like good shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into the flock. All shepherds hold by no other right than that of legitimate and successive ordination. Yet St. Peter himself, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when afterwards Paul disputed with him about circumcision, did not claim any thing to himself so insolently or arrogantly as to say that he held a primacy, or that he ought rather to be obeyed by the present and future generation.
The sayings of the great forty days, between the resurrection and ascension ... By George Moberly
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=the+episcopate+is+one+episcopatum+unum&id=XIQrAAAAYAAJ&ots=8gPpU-mje5#v=onepage&q=the%20episcopate%20is%20one%20episcopatum%20unum&f=false
On St. Cyprian, consider his translation of the letter of Firmilian into Latin:

Ah, yes. His translation into Latin of Firmilian's letter for Rome shows that:

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Arbp.] Stephen [of Old Rome], that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity...
24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all[/u]; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

On that:
I am seeking independent verification of information contained in an Orthodox encyclical

The encyclical in question is
"Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

In it they say...

"...witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be "the most venerable of all the Churches in the world." Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: "The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used."

I have looked at the cite www.ccel.org which gives documents by Church Fathers.

The 48th epistle by Basil begins...
Letter XLVIII.

To Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata.

I have had considerable difficulty in finding a messenger to convey a letter to your reverence, for our men are so afraid of the winter that they can hardly bear even to put their heads outside their houses.  We have suffered from such a very heavy fall of snow that we have been buried, houses and all, beneath it, and now for two months have been living in dens and caves.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xlix.html

Am I missing something regarding the reference (Ep. 48 Athan.)?

Also, I can't find the letter sent by the second ecumenical council to 'the west'



My best guess is that it is this epistle which Basil wrote to Athanasius, which is being referenced: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.lxvii.html

In it he writes:
Quote
No one knows better than you do, that, like all wise physicians, you ought to begin your treatment in the most vital parts, and what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch?  Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body.  Truly the diseases of that city, which has not only been cut asunder by heretics, but is torn in pieces by men who say that they are of one mind with one another, stand in need of your wisdom and evangelic sympathy.


I don't mean to be rude but I'm not gonna read all that Undecided

Just to touch on your map. Your map proves nothing contrary to what I said. All can claim truth but claiming such does not make it so... Heretics have their community but no matter how much they claim to be orthodox, they are not. Sedevancists ,in the same light, are not Catholic

Secondly the part of St.Cyprian I was referring to is this one to show the logic if why the sedevancists are not Catholic
Quote
There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals.
For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:Cool.
s

I don't know why you showed me a whole discussion about the one episcopate and unity of bishops as well as the little touch of Antiochan triumphalism at the end  Huh How is any of this relevant to the Catholicity of sedevancists?
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 05:56:23 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 17, 2013, 05:38:59 PM »

So who was the real pope then?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #80 on: August 17, 2013, 05:57:54 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

But to answer your question, the line of Roman Popes is recognized as the legitimate line.

Quote
Pope Pius II decreed that no appeal could be made from pope to council; this left no way to undo a papal election by anyone but the elected pope. No such crisis has arisen since the 15th century, and so there has been no need to revisit this decision. The alternate papal claimants have become known in history as antipopes. Those of Avignon were dismissed by Rome early on, but the Pisan popes were included in the Annuario Pontificio as popes well into the 20th century. Thus the Borgia pope Alexander VI took his regnal name in sequence after the Pisan Alexander V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 06:11:20 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,619



« Reply #81 on: August 17, 2013, 06:05:32 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 06:06:36 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #82 on: August 17, 2013, 06:09:33 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

Secondly I never said anything about Vatican 1 Huh

I was just explaining the logic behind why sedevancists aren't Catholic. As Cyprian taught that you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop. Or as he says, no "invisible communion"...
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 06:14:08 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #83 on: August 17, 2013, 06:13:41 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #84 on: August 17, 2013, 06:15:18 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 06:17:50 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,619



« Reply #85 on: August 17, 2013, 06:19:36 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

How do you know, other than faith, which pope was the true pope?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #86 on: August 17, 2013, 06:24:35 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

How do you know, other than faith, which pope was the true pope?

Depends how much is known of the situation by the one deciding where allegiance lies.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #87 on: August 17, 2013, 06:25:34 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

How do you know, other than faith, which pope was the true pope?
Good question. It was just a matter of faith. It was not something that could be objectively proved.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #88 on: August 17, 2013, 06:27:17 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

How do you know, other than faith, which pope was the true pope?

Depends how much is known of the situation by the one deciding where allegiance lies.

But if you lived in France or England you couldn't just go to a parish of the competing pope.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #89 on: August 17, 2013, 06:36:29 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

How do you know, other than faith, which pope was the true pope?

Depends how much is known of the situation by the one deciding where allegiance lies.

But if you lived in France or England you couldn't just go to a parish of the competing pope.

This is why I said the greater sin is on those misleading those who knew no better. If one is truly ignorant or incapable of doing something about the situation, God knows...They are entrusted to the divine wisdom and mercy of God. How then can one be called a schismatic?

The true schismatics are those that know what they are doing and yet persist 
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #90 on: August 17, 2013, 06:37:53 PM »

They are entrusted to the divine wisdom and mercy of God. How then can one be called a schismatic?

You called them as such a couple of posts above.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #91 on: August 17, 2013, 06:38:19 PM »

The "schismatics" probably thought that the others were schismatic and that they were following the true Pope.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 06:38:39 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #92 on: August 17, 2013, 06:42:15 PM »

They are entrusted to the divine wisdom and mercy of God. How then can one be called a schismatic?

You called them as such a couple of posts above.

Yet I wasn't referring to the innocent and ignorant but to those who knew what they were doing. Hence I said the greater sin is on those who mislead those who knew no better

getting tired of  saying this  Undecided
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #93 on: August 17, 2013, 06:43:52 PM »

They are entrusted to the divine wisdom and mercy of God. How then can one be called a schismatic?

You called them as such a couple of posts above.

Yet I wasn't referring to the innocent and ignorant but to those who knew what they were doing. Hence I said the greater sin is on those who mislead those who knew no better

getting tired of  saying this  Undecided

This...


So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

...seems pretty straightforward.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #94 on: August 17, 2013, 06:45:13 PM »

The "schismatics" probably thought that the others were schismatic and that they were following the true Pope.

AGAIN I say the sin greater sin is on those who mislead the ignorant.
So in truth the ignorant are not schismatics. The schismatics are those who knew what they were doing and chose to persist (Those who elected the antipopes and stuck by them)

For a  schism to exist, there has to be schismatics
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #95 on: August 17, 2013, 06:45:51 PM »

They are entrusted to the divine wisdom and mercy of God. How then can one be called a schismatic?

You called them as such a couple of posts above.

Yet I wasn't referring to the innocent and ignorant but to those who knew what they were doing. Hence I said the greater sin is on those who mislead those who knew no better

getting tired of  saying this  Undecided

This...


So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

...seems pretty straightforward.

looks can be deceiving  Wink
seriously how can you possibly KNOW what I meant. I'm teaching exactly what the church teaches on schismatics and the innocent
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 06:46:44 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 37,963



« Reply #96 on: August 17, 2013, 07:07:30 PM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
If a bishop publicly preaches heresy, it is the duty of every Christian not to accept communion with that bishop. Of course, the Sedevacantists take this a step further and claim that any pope who preaches heresy ceases to be a pope, and that all of the popes since <insert Pope here> (they can't agree on which pope it is), has been an anti-pope.

Yes I know this already. This is their position and true in theory. The reality is what matters though. The Popes aren't in heresy and a group claiming to be Catholic can't be catholic when not in communion with the bishop of that Church (who is orthodox). That is why they are not Catholic.

Every heretic and schismatic needs some sort of justification for their position to remain in said position. So too the sedevancists must believe the Popes have fallen and continue to be in heresy. Just as the Arians went off believing they were orthodox, just like the nestorians and monophosites etc. Same devil, new dress.

However I'm just here to present the catholic position  angel
The Catholic position is that the Vatican's popes are in heresy, and hence are not found in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

The Sedevacantists came a little slow (nearly a thousand years), and-partly-for the wrong reason.  But the reality is what matters, and the Popes of Rome have fallen and continue to be in heresy.  Just as Novatians went off believing they were Orthodox, just like the Donatists and Monothelites etc.  Evidently, the devil wears prada


Unfortunately, you all believe in the existence of anti-popes. You just disagree on which ones.  Why should we take your list over the list of the Sedevacantists?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #97 on: August 17, 2013, 07:10:07 PM »

The "schismatics" probably thought that the others were schismatic and that they were following the true Pope.
This . . . ↑
Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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: 37,963



« Reply #98 on: August 17, 2013, 07:13:58 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

But to answer your question, the line of Roman Popes is recognized as the legitimate line.
By whom?  as your Vatican does not list them ex cathedra.

And of course, you can only say "recognized now" (only since 1958) as your source points out:

Quote
Pope Pius II decreed that no appeal could be made from pope to council; this left no way to undo a papal election by anyone but the elected pope. No such crisis has arisen since the 15th century, and so there has been no need to revisit this decision. The alternate papal claimants have become known in history as antipopes. Those of Avignon were dismissed by Rome early on, but the Pisan popes were included in the Annuario Pontificio as popes well into the 20th century. Thus the Borgia pope Alexander VI took his regnal name in sequence after the Pisan Alexander V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 07:14:20 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #99 on: August 17, 2013, 07:16:52 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

Secondly I never said anything about Vatican 1 Huh

I was just explaining the logic behind why sedevancists aren't Catholic. As Cyprian taught that you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop. Or as he says, no "invisible communion"...
so you are claiming that the Catholic Church disappears during interregnum, only to rise like the phoenix from its ashes with the election of another supreme 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
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: 37,963



« Reply #100 on: August 17, 2013, 07:23:09 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

How do you know, other than faith, which pope was the true pope?

Depends how much is known of the situation by the one deciding where allegiance lies.

But if you lived in France or England you couldn't just go to a parish of the competing pope.

This is why I said the greater sin is on those misleading those who knew no better. If one is truly ignorant or incapable of doing something about the situation, God knows...They are entrusted to the divine wisdom and mercy of God. How then can one be called a schismatic?

The true schismatics are those that know what they are doing and yet persist 
Like your supreme pontiff Leo IX.
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: 6,147



« Reply #101 on: August 17, 2013, 09:12:03 PM »

Wow this thread is seriously off topic. The topic wasn't the Orthodox bishop whose jurisdiction includes the city of Rome, or sedevacantism, or whether sedevacantism makes sense or what arguments it employs.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #102 on: August 17, 2013, 09:16:40 PM »

I was just explaining the logic behind why sedevancists aren't Catholic. As Cyprian taught that you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop. Or as he says, no "invisible communion"...
so you are claiming that the Catholic Church disappears during interregnum, only to rise like the phoenix from its ashes with the election of another supreme pontiff.

I'll certainly grant you that, during an interregnum, we Catholics are (technically) sedevacantists*. Of course, not in any sense that brings the two groups closer to a union.

* You may recall that some of us changed our profiles to reflect that fact, upon the resignation of Pope Benedict -- which drew comments from some posters who either didn't grasp or didn't care for the logic and/or humor of said changes.
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: 37,963



« Reply #103 on: August 17, 2013, 09:23:32 PM »

Wow this thread is seriously off topic. The topic wasn't the Orthodox bishop whose jurisdiction includes the city of Rome, or sedevacantism, or whether sedevacantism makes sense or what arguments it employs.
see what happens when you make up a claim that cannot be sustained?
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #104 on: August 18, 2013, 02:11:46 AM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

Secondly I never said anything about Vatican 1 Huh

I was just explaining the logic behind why sedevancists aren't Catholic. As Cyprian taught that you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop. Or as he says, no "invisible communion"...
so you are claiming that the Catholic Church disappears during interregnum, only to rise like the phoenix from its ashes with the election of another supreme pontiff.

What?

The Catholic Church is permanent and remains so even during interregnum
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #105 on: August 18, 2013, 02:16:28 AM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

So those who followed other popes were schismatics?

Simply put, yes. The greater sin however is on those that mislead those who knew no better. But yes
its like how we view the Orthodox...if that helps

How do you know, other than faith, which pope was the true pope?

Depends how much is known of the situation by the one deciding where allegiance lies.

But if you lived in France or England you couldn't just go to a parish of the competing pope.

This is why I said the greater sin is on those misleading those who knew no better. If one is truly ignorant or incapable of doing something about the situation, God knows...They are entrusted to the divine wisdom and mercy of God. How then can one be called a schismatic?

The true schismatics are those that know what they are doing and yet persist 
Like your supreme pontiff Leo IX.

Like your Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius  or Mark of Ephesus or etc
Do we really have to play this game? We know how we view each other already  Roll Eyes
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #106 on: August 18, 2013, 02:46:50 AM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

But to answer your question, the line of Roman Popes is recognized as the legitimate line.
By whom?  as your Vatican does not list them ex cathedra.

And of course, you can only say "recognized now" (only since 1958) as your source points out:

Quote
Pope Pius II decreed that no appeal could be made from pope to council; this left no way to undo a papal election by anyone but the elected pope. No such crisis has arisen since the 15th century, and so there has been no need to revisit this decision. The alternate papal claimants have become known in history as antipopes. Those of Avignon were dismissed by Rome early on, but the Pisan popes were included in the Annuario Pontificio as popes well into the 20th century. Thus the Borgia pope Alexander VI took his regnal name in sequence after the Pisan Alexander V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism


Quote
Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the faculty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostolic Succession. This was seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elections take place simultaneously or nearly so, one according to laws previously passed and the other contrary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discussions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope

This dissension was called schism, but incorrectly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he regarded as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, I, 461)...

 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. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenröther, Bliemetzrieder, Hefele, Hinschius, Kraus, Brück, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Switzerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who assumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I,8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large volumes. following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". Does not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? A final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its arguments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this list of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legitimacy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. 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.

We have already quoted much, having had to rely on ancient and contemporary testimonies, on those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as on those of the nineteenth and even the twentieth, but we shall transcribe two texts borrowed from writers who with regard to the Church are at opposite poles. The first is Gregorovius, whom no one will suspect of exaggerated respect for the papacy. Concerning the schismatic divisions of the period he writes: "A temporal kingdom would have succumbed thereto; but the organization of the spiritual kingdom was so wonderful, the ideal of the papacy so indestructible, that this, the most serious of schisms, served only to demonstrate its indivisibility" (Gesch. der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, VI, 620). From a widely different standpoint de Maistre holds the same view: "This scourge of contemporaries is for us an historical treasure. It serves to prove how immovable is the throne of St. Peter. What human organization would have withstood this trial?" (Du Pape, IV, conclusion).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

Rome recognizes it. Doesn't matter when it was finally recognized. Once the truth is out, it remains the truth. Your question has been answered. Can we drop this irrelevant topic now? angel
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 02:48:13 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #107 on: August 18, 2013, 02:52:00 AM »

Wow, this thread really got off-topic early.

I don't think there's a consensus, especially when you consider that some Roman Catholic groups think the seat has been vacant for decades.  Lips Sealed

Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

Yes, they are. Robert Bellermine, Cajetan and a host of others stated that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. No official proclamation needs to be made since he loses the office automatically. Sedevacantism is a valid opinion given the current state of things in the roman church.

I wasn't aware of Cajetan specifically, but I knew that Robert Bellermine and many others taught that a pope who became a heretic would cease to be the pope. I doesn't affect my statement however: Sedevacantists are not Roman Catholics.

What are they? What dogma do they deny which denies them the title: Roman Catholic?

They are Sedevacantist, plain and simple.

They broke communion with the Holy See. Can anyone to claim to be part of a church when not in union with its bishop and the other bishops in unity with the one bishop they are all in communion with? (Unity of Faith, St.Cyprian answers this)
If a bishop publicly preaches heresy, it is the duty of every Christian not to accept communion with that bishop. Of course, the Sedevacantists take this a step further and claim that any pope who preaches heresy ceases to be a pope, and that all of the popes since <insert Pope here> (they can't agree on which pope it is), has been an anti-pope.

Yes I know this already. This is their position and true in theory. The reality is what matters though. The Popes aren't in heresy and a group claiming to be Catholic can't be catholic when not in communion with the bishop of that Church (who is orthodox). That is why they are not Catholic.

Every heretic and schismatic needs some sort of justification for their position to remain in said position. So too the sedevancists must believe the Popes have fallen and continue to be in heresy. Just as the Arians went off believing they were orthodox, just like the nestorians and monophosites etc. Same devil, new dress.

However I'm just here to present the catholic position  angel
The Catholic position is that the Vatican's popes are in heresy, and hence are not found in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

The Sedevacantists came a little slow (nearly a thousand years), and-partly-for the wrong reason.  But the reality is what matters, and the Popes of Rome have fallen and continue to be in heresy.  Just as Novatians went off believing they were Orthodox, just like the Donatists and Monothelites etc.  Evidently, the devil wears prada


Unfortunately, you all believe in the existence of anti-popes. You just disagree on which ones.  Why should we take your list over the list of the Sedevacantists?

The Catholic position of the one holy catholic and apostolic church of God is the position of Rome which is what I've presented.

Why believe our list? Why believe Francis is legitimate? No need to even ask us when you can ask one of your own, Patriarch Bartholomew who attended the enthronement of the Bishop of Rome Wink

This is gonna ruffle some feathers   Tongue
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 02:54:21 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #108 on: August 18, 2013, 07:10:08 AM »

Why believe our list? Why believe Francis is legitimate? No need to even ask us when you can ask one of your own, Patriarch Bartholomew who attended the enthronement of the Bishop of Rome Wink

This is gonna ruffle some feathers   Tongue

Sometime someone should make a collection of the posts that end with that statement or an equivalent. Cool
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: 1,619



« Reply #109 on: August 18, 2013, 02:45:17 PM »

The Catholic position of the one holy catholic and apostolic church of God is the position of Rome which is what I've presented.

Why believe our list? Why believe Francis is legitimate? No need to even ask us when you can ask one of your own, Patriarch Bartholomew who attended the enthronement of the Bishop of Rome Wink

This is gonna ruffle some feathers   Tongue

That doesn't mean that we view Pope Francis as a valid bishop. The Fathers taught that the Holy Spirit departs from those who are in heresy, and that their sacraments are without grace, though preserving the proper apostolic form.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 02:46:16 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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: 37,963



« Reply #110 on: August 18, 2013, 03:14:46 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

Secondly I never said anything about Vatican 1 Huh

I was just explaining the logic behind why sedevancists aren't Catholic. As Cyprian taught that you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop. Or as he says, no "invisible communion"...
so you are claiming that the Catholic Church disappears during interregnum, only to rise like the phoenix from its ashes with the election of another supreme pontiff.

What?

The Catholic Church is permanent and remains so even during interregnum
You claimed "you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop."  During interregnum you have no super bishop to be with."  Compare your Code of Canon Law:
Quote
Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.
The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th (which was held during interregnum) do not conform to these canons.  And yet they are Ecumenical, even for the Vatican-whether its present sovereign or the Sedevantists.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 03:17:41 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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #111 on: August 19, 2013, 12:54:47 PM »

So who was the real pope then?

This has nothing to do with anything

Sure it does. You basically claim that St. Cyprian should be interpreted as supporting the papacy of Vatican I. The question, then, of what one does when there are three competing popes, is a perfectly relevant question for your interpretation of St. Cyprian.

read up. I modified my post.

Secondly I never said anything about Vatican 1 Huh

I was just explaining the logic behind why sedevancists aren't Catholic. As Cyprian taught that you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop. Or as he says, no "invisible communion"...
so you are claiming that the Catholic Church disappears during interregnum, only to rise like the phoenix from its ashes with the election of another supreme pontiff.

What?

The Catholic Church is permanent and remains so even during interregnum
You claimed "you are not in the Church of the bishop if you are not with that bishop."  During interregnum you have no super bishop to be with."  Compare your Code of Canon Law:
Quote
Can. 340 If the Apostolic See becomes vacant during the celebration of a council, the council is interrupted by the law itself until the new Supreme Pontiff orders it to be continued or dissolves it.

 but I'm in communion with the office of the bishop and whoever succeeds the former. With that church and all the other bishops of the church. This argument is desperate now Undecided

Can. 341 §1. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they have been approved by the Roman Pontiff together with the council fathers, confirmed by him, and promulgated at his order.[/size]
The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th (which was held during interregnum) do not conform to these canons.  And yet they are Ecumenical, even for the Vatican-whether its present sovereign or the Sedevantists.
[/quote]

ok?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 12:58:30 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,554



WWW
« Reply #112 on: August 19, 2013, 01:31:00 PM »

If you are going to have a single person besides Christ make statements on Church affairs that cannot be considered wrong, do you really want it to be this one:



Just something about his taste in church art tells me he cannot be right all the time.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 01:47:53 PM by rakovsky » Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,337


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: August 19, 2013, 02:56:36 PM »

If you are going to have a single person besides Christ make statements on Church affairs that cannot be considered wrong, do you really want it to be this one:



Just something about his taste in church art tells me he cannot be right all the time.

Gah, that's the stuff of nightmares.
Logged

JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,741


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #114 on: August 19, 2013, 03:42:56 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #115 on: August 19, 2013, 04:05:47 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?

This is working on a false premise. You omit the fact that in the Catholic view Ex Cathedra pronouncements are guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why they are infallible. Hence what you describe is not possible because how can the Holy Spirit ,speaking through the Bishop of Rome, contradict himself?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 04:06:43 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #116 on: August 19, 2013, 04:08:54 PM »

If you are going to have a single person besides Christ make statements on Church affairs that cannot be considered wrong, do you really want it to be this one:



Just something about his taste in church art tells me he cannot be right all the time.

Church affairs on Faith and Morals... Not in art Wink
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,183



WWW
« Reply #117 on: August 19, 2013, 04:18:10 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?

In practice, people decide what is wrong or right without the proclamations of the Pope. Then, what agrees with that is considered by that generation to be "ex cathedra". When that changes, they say the interpreters - not the Pope - got it wrong.

It just shows that it's pointless to have someone who makes infallible proclamations if you don't have an infallible audience as well. The whole infallibility issue - be it from Pope, Council or Bible - is bogus. There is no single element of the Church that is always right above the rest of the Church.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,263


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #118 on: August 19, 2013, 05:09:59 PM »

If you are going to have a single person besides Christ make statements on Church affairs that cannot be considered wrong, do you really want it to be this one:



Just something about his taste in church art tells me he cannot be right all the time.

I herebye define, declare, and pronounce, by the authority granted me as High Papist, that this abomination, masquerading as art, is to be consigned to the flames.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,554



WWW
« Reply #119 on: August 19, 2013, 05:44:26 PM »

I herebye define, declare, and pronounce, by the authority granted me as High Papist, that this abomination, masquerading as art, is to be consigned to the flames.
According to the official explanation, that's most of what it's depicting.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 05:45:10 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,554



WWW
« Reply #120 on: August 19, 2013, 06:13:31 PM »


Church affairs on Faith and Morals... Not in art Wink
Art can overlap with faith or morality. We have for example the "Sign of the Cross", and a belief in its rightness.

In 1670, the Holy Office under Pope Clement X banned crucifixes "with features so distorted by grief that they provoke disgust rather than pious attention". In 1921 under Pope Benedict XV the Church banned stations of the cross by Belgian artist Albert Servaes, including this one:


Tastes change?


Let's have a closer look at that:
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 06:25:28 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,554



WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 19, 2013, 06:23:10 PM »

Gah, that's the stuff of nightmares.



Welcome to the Papal Audience Hall. Please step forward. Do you have a petition to present?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 06:45:35 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #122 on: August 19, 2013, 06:56:31 PM »


Church affairs on Faith and Morals... Not in art Wink
Art can overlap with faith or morality.

People are always saying "The pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals", but that's actually redundant: every ex cathedra statement is on faith and morals (though not every statement on faith and morals is ex cathedra).
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: 37,963



« Reply #123 on: August 19, 2013, 08:07:08 PM »


Church affairs on Faith and Morals... Not in art Wink
Art can overlap with faith or morality.

People are always saying "The pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals", but that's actually redundant: every ex cathedra statement is on faith and morals (though not every statement on faith and morals is ex cathedra).
Alas! The question of who was the "true pontiff" during the Great Western Schism is a matter of history.
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: 37,963



« Reply #124 on: August 19, 2013, 08:13:20 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?

This is working on a false premise. You omit the fact that in the Catholic view Ex Cathedra pronouncements are guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why they are infallible. Hence what you describe is not possible because how can the Holy Spirit ,speaking through the Bishop of Rome, contradict himself?
since your pontiffs contradict themselves (e.g. Pope Honorius I and Pope John II), we know that the Holy Spirit is not speaking through all of them.  That is why we know that they are fallible.

That's how history views it, the Catholic view.   Ultramontanism's revisionist views cannot withstand scrutiny.
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
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #125 on: August 19, 2013, 08:29:34 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?
It wouldn't happen.  No Pope would do that.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,263


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #126 on: August 19, 2013, 08:54:16 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?

This is working on a false premise. You omit the fact that in the Catholic view Ex Cathedra pronouncements are guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why they are infallible. Hence what you describe is not possible because how can the Holy Spirit ,speaking through the Bishop of Rome, contradict himself?
since your pontiffs contradict themselves (e.g. Pope Honorius I and Pope John II), we know that the Holy Spirit is not speaking through all of them.  That is why we know that they are fallible.

That's how history views it, the Catholic view.   Ultramontanism's revisionist views cannot withstand scrutiny.
Hmmmm. For some reason I thought we had that sorted out.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,963



« Reply #127 on: August 19, 2013, 09:01:49 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?
It wouldn't happen.  No Pope would do that.
Pope Leo II did just that.

And Pope Leo IX reversed the decision of Pope Leo III on the filioque.

The list can go on.  Like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_synod
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 09:04:12 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,263


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #128 on: August 19, 2013, 09:03:22 PM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?
It wouldn't happen.  No Pope would do that.
Pope Leo II did just that.
Explain
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,554



WWW
« Reply #129 on: August 19, 2013, 09:46:30 PM »

Quote
Quote
So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then? ~James R
It wouldn't happen.

Quote
At the end of the trial, Formosus was pronounced guilty and his papacy retroactively declared null.

Probably around January 897, Stephen (VI) VII ordered that the corpse of his predecessor Formosus be removed from its tomb and brought to the papal court for judgement. With the corpse propped up on a throne, a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff.

Stephen had the corpse stripped of its papal vestments, cut off the three fingers of his right hand used for blessings, and declared all of his acts and ordinations (including his ordination of Stephen (VI) VII as bishop of Anagni) invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_synod

There you go. First the Pope makes a statement about the religion, which cannot be wrong. Then the Pope is deposed and his ordination and previous acts are declared invalid, naturally, that would include any infallible statements, since his authority to make them is declared invalid.

But what do you mean it would not happen? What's more unlikely, putting a Pope's corpse on trial and having someone give testimony for the corpse, or deciding that some statements previously-considered to be infallible were not?

Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #130 on: August 19, 2013, 10:41:32 PM »

There you go. First the Pope makes a statement about the religion, which cannot be wrong. Then the Pope is deposed and his ordination and previous acts are declared invalid, naturally, that would include any infallible statements, since his authority to make them is declared invalid.

But even if a pope wasn't declared invalid (or whatever) it wouldn't necessarily follow that any statements of his were ex cathedra.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,554



WWW
« Reply #131 on: August 19, 2013, 11:18:35 PM »

There you go. First the Pope makes a statement about the religion, which cannot be wrong. Then the Pope is deposed and his ordination and previous acts are declared invalid, naturally, that would include any infallible statements, since his authority to make them is declared invalid.

But even if a pope wasn't declared invalid (or whatever) it wouldn't necessarily follow that any statements of his were ex cathedra.
My point is that you can easily imagine a situation where a Pope makes a decision considered ex cathedra infallible and then a later Pope decides to obviously contradict it.

Then a whole bunch of rationalizations can be deployed to make it look like it's not a real contradiction. Then what is obvious to the eye is glossed over, just like in the Cadaver Synod. Following that example, the later Pople can decide that the former Pope did not have the authority to make such and such a decision.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #132 on: August 20, 2013, 01:36:54 AM »

So what happens if one Pope says something ex-cathedra and then a later Pope also speaks ex-cathedra and declares that the past Pope was wrong? Who's right? They can't both be speaking ex-cathedra because one of them must be wrong. What happens then?
It wouldn't happen.  No Pope would do that.
Pope Leo II did just that.

And Pope Leo IX reversed the decision of Pope Leo III on the filioque.

The list can go on.  Like this:

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

That's fine, were they speaking ex cathedra though ?
again you are arguing on a false premise.  This time you assuming that every statement a pope makes is considered ex cathedra and thus any cobtradiction between two pipes is "proof" of Papal infallibility not bring true Tongue
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 01:38:41 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #133 on: August 20, 2013, 02:27:18 AM »

I'm not Catholic and never have been, but even I am understanding the basic premise of ex cathedra.  Every word out of the Popes mouth is not considered ex cathedra.  Unless you consider, "I don't like lemon in my water" as an infallible statement.  What ex cathedra statements did Pope Leo IX declare which a later Pope stated was wrong or he later declared wrong?  And if you really want to get silly, wouldn't the declaration against the use of icons and then later acceptance be sort of the same thing?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 02:54:04 AM by Kerdy » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #134 on: August 20, 2013, 04:35:08 AM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #135 on: August 20, 2013, 05:23:02 AM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Condescension and sarcasm, with $8.00 gets you a cup of coffee.  Crazy what one finds when one researches.  I picked this book up from the library because of this and one other thread.  A lot of "he said, she said" going on and frankly, I'm a little sick of it.  So, go to an accepted source.

Quote
The Pope is infallible, but he isn’t a know-it-all.  His charism of infallibility, which he enjoys as the successor to Peter, is strictly limited.  Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”  So states Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.  Note the limitation: Papal infallibility extends only to matters of faith or morals-not to Church customs, not to sports, not to literature, not to most things of everyday life.  And infallibility comes into play only when the pope “proclaims by a definitive act.”  This means, a formal, public statement.  An offhand comment over lunch doesn’t count.

By the way, infallibility isn’t limited to the pope or to papal decrees.  The bishops, when united with the pope in an ecumenical council, also teach infallibly on matters of faith or morals…Many councils have issued disciplinary decrees also, but those decrees are not infallible because they do not concern directly matters of faith or morals.

…The pope and the bishops don’t have to meet in a council to teach without error.  The Holy Spirit guarantees they will teach truly whenever they reiterate what the Church always has taught.  The Church always has taught the historical reality of the resurrection, for example, and an individual bishop teaches infallibly when he reiterates this teaching.

What Catholics Really Believe (52 Answers to Common Misconceptions About the Catholic Faith) – Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1992, Pg 14-15

http://www.amazon.com/Catholics-Really-Believe-Setting-Record-Straight/dp/0898705533

It also explains the difference between matters of faith/morals and customs. Start with page 13.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 05:42:25 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #136 on: August 20, 2013, 05:42:40 AM »

Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Too vague. Do doctrinal letters to the Patriarchate of Constantinople count?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #137 on: August 20, 2013, 05:45:56 AM »

Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Too vague. Do doctrinal letters to the Patriarchate of Constantinople count?

We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope's ability to declare ex cathedra, not the Orthodox Church.  No, I have no reason to believe the Patriarchate of Constantinople has anything to do with Vatican I or Vatican II.  If you have a specific letter you are talking about, you will need to be more specific, but I doubt I can answer that question completely.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 05:47:14 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #138 on: August 20, 2013, 05:47:06 AM »

Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Too vague. Do doctrinal letters to the Patriarchate of Constantinople count?

We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope's ability to declare ex cathedra, not the Orthodox Church.  No, I have no reason to believe the Patriarchate of Constantinople has anything to do with Vatican I or Vatican II.

I was talking about Pope Honorius' doctrinal letter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 7th century.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 05:47:15 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #139 on: August 20, 2013, 05:47:37 AM »

Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Too vague. Do doctrinal letters to the Patriarchate of Constantinople count?

We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope's ability to declare ex cathedra, not the Orthodox Church.  No, I have no reason to believe the Patriarchate of Constantinople has anything to do with Vatican I or Vatican II.

I was talking about Pope Honorius' doctrinal letter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 7th century.

Way before Vatican I and II.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #140 on: August 20, 2013, 05:48:38 AM »

If you go to the link on Amazon, you can actually read several pages, of which I mentioned, there for free.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #141 on: August 20, 2013, 05:49:40 AM »

Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Too vague. Do doctrinal letters to the Patriarchate of Constantinople count?

We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope's ability to declare ex cathedra, not the Orthodox Church.  No, I have no reason to believe the Patriarchate of Constantinople has anything to do with Vatican I or Vatican II.

I was talking about Pope Honorius' doctrinal letter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 7th century.

Way before Vatican I and II.

Do the Roman Catholics teach that the Pope became infallible in 1870?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 05:49:48 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #142 on: August 20, 2013, 05:51:27 AM »

Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Too vague. Do doctrinal letters to the Patriarchate of Constantinople count?

We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope's ability to declare ex cathedra, not the Orthodox Church.  No, I have no reason to believe the Patriarchate of Constantinople has anything to do with Vatican I or Vatican II.

I was talking about Pope Honorius' doctrinal letter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 7th century.

Way before Vatican I and II.

Do the Roman Catholics teach that the Pope became infallible in 1870?
You will need to ask a Catholic and actually accept what they say.  I also checked out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but its thick.  If I find an answer there (may be awhile) I will let you know.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 05:51:42 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #143 on: August 20, 2013, 06:09:58 AM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Well sarcasm aside, you make a good point. Many Catholics have the idea that the pope can "turn on" papal infallibility whenever he wants to. (I'm reminded of the old joke that the pope should have stationary with I infallibly declare ...)

Note: I'm not even talking about the ones who blatantly misrepresent PI, a la "The pope is infallible when he speaks on faith and morals." That's just crazy.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #144 on: August 20, 2013, 07:05:42 AM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Well sarcasm aside, you make a good point. Many Catholics have the idea that the pope can "turn on" papal infallibility whenever he wants to. (I'm reminded of the old joke that the pope should have stationary with I infallibly declare ...)

Note: I'm not even talking about the ones who blatantly misrepresent PI, a la "The pope is infallible when he speaks on faith and morals." That's just crazy.

Are you saying Karl Keating is incorrect? 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #145 on: August 20, 2013, 07:24:50 AM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Well sarcasm aside, you make a good point. Many Catholics have the idea that the pope can "turn on" papal infallibility whenever he wants to. (I'm reminded of the old joke that the pope should have stationary with I infallibly declare ...)

Note: I'm not even talking about the ones who blatantly misrepresent PI, a la "The pope is infallible when he speaks on faith and morals." That's just crazy.

Are you saying Karl Keating is incorrect? 

Well of course. All of my posts are about Karl Keating.

Wink

Just kidding. Who's Karl Keating?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #146 on: August 20, 2013, 07:30:52 AM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Well sarcasm aside, you make a good point. Many Catholics have the idea that the pope can "turn on" papal infallibility whenever he wants to. (I'm reminded of the old joke that the pope should have stationary with I infallibly declare ...)

Note: I'm not even talking about the ones who blatantly misrepresent PI, a la "The pope is infallible when he speaks on faith and morals." That's just crazy.

Are you saying Karl Keating is incorrect? 

Well of course. All of my posts are about Karl Keating.

Wink

Just kidding. Who's Karl Keating?

Reply #135

The late Cardinal John O'Connor seemed to like and agree with his book in that post as well as Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in relation to Papal Infallibility and ex cathedra.

Unless I misunderstood, it sounds as if you disagree with the author, the Cardinal, and the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church means. Maybe I did not read your post properly. Huh
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #147 on: August 20, 2013, 08:44:29 AM »

Maybe I did not read your post properly. Huh

Well, I really can't say what you read or didn't read in my post. (But I'm not too concerned about it.) Is there a specific part that you are referring to?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #148 on: August 20, 2013, 09:30:06 AM »

Maybe I did not read your post properly. Huh

Well, I really can't say what you read or didn't read in my post. (But I'm not too concerned about it.) Is there a specific part that you are referring to?
Don't worry about it.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #149 on: August 20, 2013, 09:40:31 AM »

Maybe I did not read your post properly. Huh

Well, I really can't say what you read or didn't read in my post. (But I'm not too concerned about it.) Is there a specific part that you are referring to?
Don't worry about it.

Maybe "But I'm not too concerned about it" wasn't the best choice of words. I do care, if it leads you to make public statements about me like this:

Unless I misunderstood, it sounds as if you disagree with the author, the Cardinal, and the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church means.

So, unless you're just trying to be dismissive, please tell me what led you to think/suppose/guess, or whatever, that I "disagree with ... the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church means."  Huh
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: 37,963



« Reply #150 on: August 20, 2013, 09:53:36 AM »

I'm not Catholic and never have been
Your avatar says GOA?  It's its in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
but even I am understanding the basic premise of ex cathedra.  Every word out of the Popes mouth is not considered ex cathedra.  Unless you consider, "I don't like lemon in my water" as an infallible statement.  What ex cathedra statements did Pope Leo IX declare which a later Pope stated was wrong or he later declared wrong?  And if you really want to get silly, wouldn't the declaration against the use of icons and then later acceptance be sort of the same thing?
No, and to even suggest it suggest a lack of understanding.

"I like filioque in my creed."  Ex Cathedra for you?  Pope Leo III didn't, and put up the unadulterated Creed on the doors of St. Peter's (and on the shrine of St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls) to underline it, but Pope Leo IX (btw, I specifically said he overturned a previous pope's decision. Do read) sent Card. Umberto to threaten us with anathema for removing it(!).

Not every is considered ex cathedra is quite meaningless when 1) they can't tell us which out of his mouth is ex cathedra, and 2) Lumen Gentium mandates that they give the same "submission of mind and will" to their pontiff when he isn't speaking ex cathedra.

As for the silly comparison on the icons, plenty of iconodules opposed the iconclasts every step of the way.  The iconoclast council, for instance, is known as the "headless council" because no primate attended.
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
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #151 on: August 20, 2013, 10:01:11 AM »

I'm not Catholic and never have been
Your avatar says GOA?  It's its in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
but even I am understanding the basic premise of ex cathedra.  Every word out of the Popes mouth is not considered ex cathedra.  Unless you consider, "I don't like lemon in my water" as an infallible statement.  What ex cathedra statements did Pope Leo IX declare which a later Pope stated was wrong or he later declared wrong?  And if you really want to get silly, wouldn't the declaration against the use of icons and then later acceptance be sort of the same thing?
No, and to even suggest it suggest a lack of understanding.

"I like filioque in my creed."  Ex Cathedra for you?  Pope Leo III didn't, and put up the unadulterated Creed on the doors of St. Peter's (and on the shrine of St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls) to underline it, but Pope Leo IX (btw, I specifically said he overturned a previous pope's decision. Do read) sent Card. Umberto to threaten us with anathema for removing it(!).

Not every is considered ex cathedra is quite meaningless when 1) they can't tell us which out of his mouth is ex cathedra, and 2) Lumen Gentium mandates that they give the same "submission of mind and will" to their pontiff when he isn't speaking ex cathedra.

As for the silly comparison on the icons, plenty of iconodules opposed the iconclasts every step of the way.  The iconoclast council, for instance, is known as the "headless council" because no primate attended.
I don't think ex cathedra means what you think it means.  In fact, according to the ones who use it, I know it doesn't mean what you think it means.  But hey, they're all just a bunch of crazy Catholics, right?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 10:03:12 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #152 on: August 20, 2013, 10:04:07 AM »

If you're going to argue against something, at least know what you're arguing against.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #153 on: August 20, 2013, 10:07:22 AM »

From what I can find, the Pope has spoken in ex cathedra three times.  Once for Papal Infallability, once for Immaculate Conception and he Assumption of Mary.  Is this correct?
Disregard (as if it hadn't been already) this question.  Got research material to study it myself.
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: 37,963



« Reply #154 on: August 20, 2013, 10:08:56 AM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Condescension and sarcasm, with $8.00 gets you a cup of coffee.  Crazy what one finds when one researches.  I picked this book up from the library because of this and one other thread.  A lot of "he said, she said" going on and frankly, I'm a little sick of it.  So, go to an accepted source.
Accepted by whom?  Even the Ultramontanists do not agree.
Quote
The Pope is infallible, but he isn’t a know-it-all.  His charism of infallibility, which he enjoys as the successor to Peter, is strictly limited.  Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”  So states Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.  Note the limitation: Papal infallibility extends only to matters of faith or morals-not to Church customs, not to sports, not to literature, not to most things of everyday life.  And infallibility comes into play only when the pope “proclaims by a definitive act.”  This means, a formal, public statement.  An offhand comment over lunch doesn’t count.
from that Dogmatic Constitution of the Church
Quote
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra [emphasis added]; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
not so limited.

Quote
By the way, infallibility isn’t limited to the pope or to papal decrees.  The bishops, when united with the pope in an ecumenical council, also teach infallibly on matters of faith or morals…Many councils have issued disciplinary decrees also, but those decrees are not infallible because they do not concern directly matters of faith or morals.
from the same source:
Quote
The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope.
Sooooo, such distinctions are made by the Vatican without a difference.
Quote
…The pope and the bishops don’t have to meet in a council to teach without error.  The Holy Spirit guarantees they will teach truly whenever they reiterate what the Church always has taught.  The Church always has taught the historical reality of the resurrection, for example, and an individual bishop teaches infallibly when he reiterates this teaching.
So yet again, ex cathedra is meaningless, as they supposedly don't have to do so to "teach without error.

Glad that was cleared up Roll Eyes
What Catholics Really Believe (52 Answers to Common Misconceptions About the Catholic Faith) – Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1992, Pg 14-15
http://www.amazon.com/Catholics-Really-Believe-Setting-Record-Straight/dp/0898705533
oh, there is no shortage within the Vatican's present communion who don't believe what Mr. Keating (the one behind "Catholic Answers"-we have some threads on them) believes, let alone with Ultramontanism's past.
It also explains the difference between matters of faith/morals and customs. Start with page 13.
Does he dare venture into history?

Btw, does his book have an imprematur?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 10:10:46 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #155 on: August 20, 2013, 10:11:40 AM »

If you're going to argue against something, at least know what you're arguing against.
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: 37,963



« Reply #156 on: August 20, 2013, 10:13:18 AM »

I'm not Catholic and never have been
Your avatar says GOA?  It's its in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
but even I am understanding the basic premise of ex cathedra.  Every word out of the Popes mouth is not considered ex cathedra.  Unless you consider, "I don't like lemon in my water" as an infallible statement.  What ex cathedra statements did Pope Leo IX declare which a later Pope stated was wrong or he later declared wrong?  And if you really want to get silly, wouldn't the declaration against the use of icons and then later acceptance be sort of the same thing?
No, and to even suggest it suggest a lack of understanding.

"I like filioque in my creed."  Ex Cathedra for you?  Pope Leo III didn't, and put up the unadulterated Creed on the doors of St. Peter's (and on the shrine of St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls) to underline it, but Pope Leo IX (btw, I specifically said he overturned a previous pope's decision. Do read) sent Card. Umberto to threaten us with anathema for removing it(!).

Not every is considered ex cathedra is quite meaningless when 1) they can't tell us which out of his mouth is ex cathedra, and 2) Lumen Gentium mandates that they give the same "submission of mind and will" to their pontiff when he isn't speaking ex cathedra.

As for the silly comparison on the icons, plenty of iconodules opposed the iconclasts every step of the way.  The iconoclast council, for instance, is known as the "headless council" because no primate attended.
I don't think ex cathedra means what you think it means.  In fact, according to the ones who use it, I know it doesn't mean what you think it means.  But hey, they're all just a bunch of crazy Catholics, right?
no, a bunch of Ultramontanist apologists.

Fact remains, they can't agree among themselves what they mean, all the while claiming we suffer from some deficiency from lacking it.
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: 37,963



« Reply #157 on: August 20, 2013, 10:16:25 AM »

If you go to the link on Amazon, you can actually read several pages, of which I mentioned, there for free.
You assUme we haven't read the book.
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: 37,963



« Reply #158 on: August 20, 2013, 10:20:25 AM »

Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”

Too vague. Do doctrinal letters to the Patriarchate of Constantinople count?

We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope's ability to declare ex cathedra, not the Orthodox Church.  No, I have no reason to believe the Patriarchate of Constantinople has anything to do with Vatican I or Vatican II.  If you have a specific letter you are talking about, you will need to be more specific, but I doubt I can answer that question completely.
How about the letter of the author of Pastor Aeternus to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the episcopate of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (or rather, their Orthodox flock)?
Quote
The Epistle to the Easterns is an apostolic letter sent by Pope Pius IX in 1848 to the bishops and clergy of the Orthodox Churches not in full Communion with the Pope, urging them to resume such Communion.
The Epistle is the first of a series of apostolic letters and encyclicals published by Pius IX defining the terms and conditions for a reunification between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches, after the Great Schism of 1054. The Pope's attitudes were later confirmed by the First Vatican Council, over which he presided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Easterns
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 10:23:08 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #159 on: August 20, 2013, 10:22:04 AM »

Do you happen to have an English or a Latin version of the Epistle to the Easterns? I've never been able to find it.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #160 on: August 20, 2013, 10:27:16 AM »

I'm not Catholic and never have been

I just wanted to quote ^^ this again for isa's benefit, in case he has gotten the idea in his head that you're a representative of Catholicism.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #161 on: August 20, 2013, 10:29:11 AM »

... supposedly don't have to do so to "teach without error."

Ah, now you're starting to catch on. Smiley

oh, there is no shortage within the Vatican's present communion who don't believe what Mr. Keating (the one behind "Catholic Answers"-we have some threads on them) believes,

I'm afraid I really couldn't tell you, since I don't know what Keating teaches and don't have any expectation of finding out. (At the risk of stating the obvious, my earlier question "Who's Karl Keating?" was semi-rhetorical, i.e. "Why would we discuss him?", not that I never heard of him before.)
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: 37,963



« Reply #162 on: August 20, 2013, 10:36:03 AM »

Do you happen to have an English or a Latin version of the Epistle to the Easterns? I've never been able to find it.
Here's the English
http://orthocath.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/pope-and-patriarchs-letters-of-pope-pius-ix-and-orthodox-patriarchs.pdf

I have the Latin somewhere, but nowhere I'll find it readily.  I think I got it out of Mansi

Here's the Latin, even better copy than Mansi
http://books.google.com/books?id=1h-P6ALXniEC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=%22In+Suprema+Petri+Apostoli+Sede%22+%22meritis+licet+imparibus%22+%22disponente+Domino%22&source=bl&ots=poDLgDTRYg&sig=UjlAIEY3d9IHjTAYlepeoRtFXdM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UoYTUqTGJKjv2QXoqIDwCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20Suprema%20Petri%20Apostoli%20Sede%22%20%22meritis%20licet%20imparibus%22%20%22disponente%20Domino%22&f=false
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 10:55:52 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #163 on: August 20, 2013, 10:59:11 AM »

Many thanks!

The book has an interesting title, though Smiley
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 10:59:47 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #164 on: August 20, 2013, 08:43:48 PM »

Fact remains, they can't agree among themselves what they mean,

Are we still talking about Catholics or did we start talking about Orthodox?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #165 on: August 20, 2013, 08:45:14 PM »

If you go to the link on Amazon, you can actually read several pages, of which I mentioned, there for free.
You assUme we haven't read the book.
If you did, its pretty obvious you didn't digest the information.  Its not that difficult of a book to understand, but I suppose that wouldn't fit into an anti-Catholic offensive philosophy.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #166 on: August 20, 2013, 08:47:00 PM »

I'm not Catholic and never have been

I just wanted to quote ^^ this again for isa's benefit, in case he has gotten the idea in his head that you're a representative of Catholicism.

I am not.  I let Catholics speak for themselves.  Its their Church, they probably know what they mean when they say something better than we know what they mean when they say something.  But lets not let that get in the way of a good fight.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #167 on: August 20, 2013, 08:49:45 PM »

... supposedly don't have to do so to "teach without error."

Ah, now you're starting to catch on. Smiley

oh, there is no shortage within the Vatican's present communion who don't believe what Mr. Keating (the one behind "Catholic Answers"-we have some threads on them) believes,

I'm afraid I really couldn't tell you, since I don't know what Keating teaches and don't have any expectation of finding out. (At the risk of stating the obvious, my earlier question "Who's Karl Keating?" was semi-rhetorical, i.e. "Why would we discuss him?", not that I never heard of him before.)
He's pretty well known in Catholic circles as an educator and apologist.  I haven’t heard anyone so far say anything negative about him other than he should be a little harder on people who ignore what Catholics say rather than what they think they are saying.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #168 on: August 20, 2013, 08:55:14 PM »

I am sorry.  You all are so right.  I just found the chapter in the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says no matter what, the Pope is right about everything.  That came from the little known Vatican 1.5.  If he says the Colts are going to win, they better win or be excommunicated.  Crazy me.  Oh, and ex cathedra does actually mean church customs after all, not dogma for morals and faith.  Found that definition in there tucked away in the back, those sneaky heretics.  Even better, just read an article about Keating which said he was actually an atheist and closet homosexual.  Yeah, that was on a homosexual rights page so it must be accurate because they would know. I made all of this up.

Whatever you do, never ever believe a Catholic, especially when they are talking about what the Catholic Church believes.  It’s all lies and conspiracy.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 08:57:25 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #169 on: August 20, 2013, 09:07:17 PM »

So, unless you're just trying to be dismissive, please tell me what led you to think/suppose/guess, or whatever, that I "disagree with ... the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church means."  Huh

Bump.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #170 on: August 20, 2013, 09:08:30 PM »

I let Catholics speak for themselves. 

Yeah, you've been doing a great job of that.  Roll Eyes
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #171 on: August 20, 2013, 09:16:07 PM »

I let Catholics speak for themselves. 

Yeah, you've been doing a great job of that. 

I know I have.  I use their words and explanations.  Their words and explanations.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #172 on: August 20, 2013, 09:18:54 PM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Well sarcasm aside, you make a good point. Many Catholics have the idea that the pope can "turn on" papal infallibility whenever he wants to. (I'm reminded of the old joke that the pope should have stationary with I infallibly declare ...)

Note: I'm not even talking about the ones who blatantly misrepresent PI, a la "The pope is infallible when he speaks on faith and morals." That's just crazy.

Are you saying Karl Keating is incorrect? 

Bump
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #173 on: August 20, 2013, 09:19:10 PM »

How is declaration ex cathedra different from the normal one? The popes puts some special clothes on, does it on precised day or something?

Well sarcasm aside, you make a good point. Many Catholics have the idea that the pope can "turn on" papal infallibility whenever he wants to. (I'm reminded of the old joke that the pope should have stationary with I infallibly declare ...)

Note: I'm not even talking about the ones who blatantly misrepresent PI, a la "The pope is infallible when he speaks on faith and morals." That's just crazy.

Are you saying Karl Keating is incorrect? 

Well of course. All of my posts are about Karl Keating.

Wink

Just kidding. Who's Karl Keating?

Reply #135

The late Cardinal John O'Connor seemed to like and agree with his book in that post as well as Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in relation to Papal Infallibility and ex cathedra.

Unless I misunderstood, it sounds as if you disagree with the author, the Cardinal, and the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church means. Maybe I did not read your post properly. Huh
Bump
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #174 on: August 20, 2013, 09:20:17 PM »

So, unless you're just trying to be dismissive, please tell me what led you to think/suppose/guess, or whatever, that I "disagree with ... the Catholic Church on what the Catholic Church means."  Huh

Bump.

You do know what a question is, yes?  As in, not an accusation...  As in, two you didn't answer.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 09:20:46 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #175 on: August 20, 2013, 09:41:14 PM »

Kerdy, if this is what you call letting us speak for ourselves, then I'm starting to thinking that I would prefer it if you would not let us speak for ourselves.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,037


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #176 on: August 20, 2013, 09:42:23 PM »

Kerdy, if this is what you call letting us speak for ourselves, then I'm starting to thinking that I would prefer it if you would not let us speak for ourselves.

You shall not defy the Kerd Almighty. You shall be stoned and burned and all sorts of other stuff.  Tongue
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfi