Author Topic: Ex cathedra  (Read 29342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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  :-\
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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  :-\

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.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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  :-\

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  ;)
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 »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.  :-X

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?
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

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,438
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 . . . ↑
"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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 ???

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.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
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

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,484
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
- Peter Jericho

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,484
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
- Peter Jericho

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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?
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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 ???

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
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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  ::)
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.  :-X

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 ;)

This is gonna ruffle some feathers   :P
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 02:54:21 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,484
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 ;)

This is gonna ruffle some feathers   :P

Sometime someone should make a collection of the posts that end with that statement or an equivalent. 8)
- Peter Jericho

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 ;)

This is gonna ruffle some feathers   :P

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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 ???

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 »
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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 ???

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 :-\

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 »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,667
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,659
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Censer-following zapivka-dipper
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline JamesR

  • The Second Coming of Jason
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,915
  • Remember me?
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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?

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 ;)
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,667
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,667
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Ex cathedra
« Reply #120 on: August 19, 2013, 06:13:31 PM »

Church affairs on Faith and Morals... Not in art ;)
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 »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,667
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,484
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ex cathedra
« Reply #122 on: August 19, 2013, 06:56:31 PM »

Church affairs on Faith and Morals... Not in art ;)
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).
- Peter Jericho

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« Reply #123 on: August 19, 2013, 08:07:08 PM »

Church affairs on Faith and Morals... Not in art ;)
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.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
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

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »
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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,667
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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?

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,484
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
- Peter Jericho

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,667
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 :P
« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 01:38:41 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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 »

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Ex cathedra
« 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?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.