Author Topic: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope  (Read 40863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« on: November 19, 2014, 12:59:32 PM »
I have never seen a Catholic source admit that Pope Viligilus was excommunicated, but here it is as a caption on the Remnant.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope


It is amazing to read the mental gymnastics they go through to reconcile deposing a Pope while upholding Vatican I. If the the Pope can be deposed for heresy, he is not the guarantee of unity or orthodoxy. The faith is. And that's Orthodoxy!

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2014, 01:41:00 PM »
My favorite explanation is that Pope Vigilius was stricken from the diptychs because he was the pope and that Justinian and the council knew they needed his approval to legitimize the council. So far from being a rebuke to modern Catholic claims it actually confirms them.  :D





« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 01:41:34 PM by Paisius »

Offline Gunnarr

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,107
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2014, 03:38:47 AM »
Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 03:39:09 AM by Gunnarr »
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2014, 03:50:21 AM »
Yeah, the Old Catholics definitely had a point, but unfortunately their side lost.

There is an ongoing dialogue between the Old Catholics and the Orthodox, and there are agreements on most of the main doctrines, but there are several sticking points that may be very hard to iron out (like women's ordination among some OC's, and intercommunion with outside groups like Anglicans).
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2014, 11:13:22 AM »
Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

But, but...Theodore Abu Qurrah!!!!!!!!!

Offline PorphyriosK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2014, 11:28:40 PM »
I have never seen a Catholic source admit that Pope Viligilus was excommunicated, but here it is as a caption on the Remnant.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope


It is amazing to read the mental gymnastics they go through to reconcile deposing a Pope while upholding Vatican I. If the the Pope can be deposed for heresy, he is not the guarantee of unity or orthodoxy. The faith is. And that's Orthodoxy!

My understanding is that there is the office of the papacy, and then there is the person holding the office.  The office of the papacy, the See of Rome, is the guarantee of unity and orthodoxy, not necessarily the individual seated in it.  The individual who is occupying that office at any given time can be faithful or unfaithful.  Most of the time he is faithful, but there have been times in history where he was not faithful.  In those times, he was either prevented from teaching heresy, or was removed from holding the office.  That's what I've come to understand.  I could be wrong.  If so, maybe someone can correct me.

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2014, 12:18:41 AM »
Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....


Is this an accurate quote?

Offline Gunnarr

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,107
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2014, 04:40:15 AM »
Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....


Is this an accurate quote?

Well, the stated source for the quote is:

Quaest. in IV Sent. Quote in: “L'Infaillibilité du pape et le Syllabus", (Besançon: Jacquin; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1904)



So........   good luck finding a 1904 book on the internet, we may never know if it is true or not!

EDIT: Actually, it is found! Lets see.. brb!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2014, 04:42:26 AM by Gunnarr »
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Gunnarr

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,107
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2014, 04:51:49 AM »
Ok, for the source on Pope Adrian IV saying that Popes may be heretics and previous popes were heretics there is this passage from that book where the author quotes him:

Quote
Celui qui devait être Adrien VI a examiné cette question dans son commentaire sur le Maître des Sentences et l'a résolue avec une précision et une netteté qui ne laissent rien à désirer : « Dico primo quod si per Romanam Ecclesian intelligatur caput ejus, puta pontifex, certum est quod possit errare, etiam in iis quae tangerent fldem, haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. Plures enim fuerunt pontifices Romani hœretici, etc. (1). »

At the 1 this is stated:

Quote
Adrien VI, Questiones in quartum Sententiarum, De sacramento confirmationis, in fine, Venumdatur in œdibus Jodoci Badii, fol. en v. L'ouvrage a été réimprimé sous le pontificat d'Adrien VI sans que ce passage ait été modifié. Sur quoi ceux qui sont choqués par cette doctrine font l'observation que voici : « Non perciô è a dirsi, ch'egli corne papa conformasse una sift'atta proposizione. Quante volte non si ristampano délie opere, senzachè ne sia consapevole l'autore, o che ne abbia dato l'ultima mano ? » (Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storicoecclesiastica, 1.1", pp. 104,105). L'observation est juste; mais, en regard de ce qui est possible, il faut considérer ce qui est probable; or, il est probable que les réimpressions ont été faites de l'aveu de l'auteur, devenu pape. Et pourquoi nous étonnerions-nous de voir Adrien VI professer la même doctrine qu'Adrien II, Innocent III, Innocent IV?

With all the mixing of french and latin, with my failures in french class when I was younger, I cannot tell what is being said much, but It appears the source is from that first latin thingy listed there...


link to the book

http://books.google.com/books?id=pYgvAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA118&lpg=RA1-PA118&dq=L%27Infaillibilite%CC%81+du+pape+et+le+Syllabus&source=bl&ots=U1mrvYQugR&sig=OqwHMF_86iG44sSIDNQX6VbfYzQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rp1xVMOqBMydgwTpvIKICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=adrien&f=false

go to page 21 for this passage
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Gunnarr

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,107
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2014, 04:53:14 AM »
Pope Adrian VI stating:

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334)."

from the link

oh dear....

But, but...Theodore Abu Qurrah!!!!!!!!!

I never heard of this person, how does he relate to Papal Infallibility??? Did he speak about the Pope?
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2014, 08:12:38 AM »
I never heard of this person, how does he relate to Papal Infallibility??? Did he speak about the Pope?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=49842.0;wap2

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2014, 02:27:35 PM »
Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.


If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.
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 gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2014, 02:33:14 PM »
Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.


If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.


Yes, but deposing a pope is entirely different from disagreeing with him. Deposing a Pope seems to completely undermine papal supremacy of jurisdiction...

Deposing a pope also undermines infallibility in a secondary way. If a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement and someone disagrees with it they can argue that he should be deposed for heresy and the new dogma rejected. The idea of deposing a pope undermines the stability that the office supposedly provides.


Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2014, 02:44:44 PM »
Venerable Pope Pius IX († 1878) recognized the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.


If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

And this is from the man whom under his pontificate, Papal infallibility was dogmatised


Just to clarify, Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is protected from erring whenever he is teaching on matters of faith and morals. That is a common misconception. What it does means is that a Pope is protected from error when he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church. Those are the guidelines set down by Vatican I for the requirements for Papal Infallibility. The new Catechism uses the term "definitive act" to refer to the act of defining a dogma. Outside of the guidelines set down by Vatican I, a Pope can err. To say he can't is to assert what the Church does not teach.


Yes, but deposing a pope is entirely different from disagreeing with him. Deposing a Pope seems to completely undermine papal supremacy of jurisdiction...

Yes its impossible in the Catholicism. Yet the fact is explained by Pope Innocent III and St.Robert Bellarmine in that a pipe can be shown to be s formal heretic. A catholic ceases to be catholic once he entered formal heresy and is thus a layman. Once shown to be a formal heretic he can be tried and judged

Pope Innocent III († 1216) stated that a pope can wither away into heresy and not believe the Faith.


"The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because "he who does not believe is already judged." (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men. '" (Sermo 4)

The opinion of St. Bellarmine (which maintains that a heretical Pope automatically loses his office) does not preclude a judgment of guilt by the Church. It only maintains that the judgment does not cause the heretical Pope to lose his office, but rather confirms that he is guilty of heresy, and as such has lost his office

Quote
Deposing a pope also undermines infallibility in a secondary way. If a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement and someone disagrees with it they can argue that he should be deposed for heresy and the new dogma rejected. The idea of deposing a pope undermines the stability that the office supposedly provides.



Straw man. It would need to be the magesterium which shows the pope to be at least a material heretic as John XXII and if he refuses to accept correction he is thus a formal heretic, no more catholic an thus the person is being judged is not a Pope but a layman.

Secondly an Ex Cathedra Pronouncement cannot be heretical as the Holy Spirit guides the pope and protects him from teaching error when defining something to be held by all as a matter of faith.

Finally the Pope must deny a de fide doctrine for all this to happen.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 02:57:19 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 Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2014, 03:33:06 PM »
Trying to combine this with papal infallibility is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy (changing a definition to exclude anything that doesn't fit the example), though. Of course popes have never erred if you automatically exclude all erring popes. It's like saying all apples are red, and any apples that are green are actually pears. You can either have Pope Innocent III or Pope Pius IX, not both.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 03:33:43 PM by Regnare »
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2014, 04:57:23 PM »
Trying to combine this with papal infallibility is basically the No True Scotsman fallacy (changing a definition to exclude anything that doesn't fit the example), though. Of course popes have never erred if you automatically exclude all erring popes. It's like saying all apples are red, and any apples that are green are actually pears. You can either have Pope Innocent III or Pope Pius IX, not both.

No this is a straw man

No Papal infallibility was defined specifically in the way it was so that no contradiction between what has been taught and what infallibility is exists. These men are all speaking of the ordinary capacity if the Popes which is true 100%. That's why such quotes haven't shaken the catholic church today because we know our tradition. Even if you would wish we didn't.


Its is a fact that formal heretic is not a catholic plain and simple. Arians aren't catholic. They are Arian...

No pope has ever been a formal heretic and that right there is the truth. Even when Pope Adrian mentions Pope John XII , he was a material heretic who renounced his error on a theological opinion as the issue hadn't even been decided yet. Pius IX already deals with liberius and Pope Liberius' actions alone show his true faith. Honorius was not a heretic as any basic reading of his letter proves. He is not even speaking of the same thing a sergius and all Pope after Honorius defended his orthodoxy. Honorius spoke of the teaching of Paul of conflicting wills of flesh and the spirit in human nature and thus concluded of Christs humanity that it had only one will. Which is true. Secondly this this is corroborated by the living testimony of the co-author of the letter; Honorius' scribe [The Abbot John] whom even St.Maximus the confessor testifies to his testimony as proof of his defence of Honorius. Secondly all subsequent popes who spoke about Honorius say exactly the same. In the west he was condemned for negligence as Leo stated quite explicitly in his various letters to the kings and bishops of the west. Leo stated he was condemned for failing to stop the rise of a heresy by failing to teach. As honorius rather told the Parties involved to desist from such talk. Venerable Bede is proof of how the west saw Honorius in that he describes him as a man known for his orthodoxy . The Vigilius case, lol that case was a joke and has been discussed to death on CAF.

Robert Bellarmine puts a good defense of all the controversial popes to prove none had been formal heretics

But I don't want to debate here as i really haven't got the energy for it. Just thought I should correct the incorrect interpretation here of these quotes as most of such quotes are post schism and the west post schism had an explicit belief in papal infallibility through not formally defined. Hence the Beatific vision controversy was settled with a Papal Bull and not pondered any further. The matter was settled. Although it was widely believed (Papal infallibility)  it was theological opinion at the time as it had not been formally defined hence Ireland had numerous fathers teaching against papal infallibility although even their idea of what papal infallibility was does not exist today as it was false.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 05:08:39 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 Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2014, 05:31:47 PM »
"Even if you would wish we didn't." Honestly. Don't try and make me into some kind of polemicist, Wandile. I spent a year wishing that I would find Catholic apologetics that sufficiently answered Orthodox criticisms so I would have a reason not to convert twice, but I didn't. If I was just trying to justify myself, I would still be Roman Catholic.
I understand that a formal heretic is not a Catholic. Orthodox believe the same thing. If the pope's infallibility comes down to being expelled from the Church (and therefore not being a pope anymore) when he tries to use his authority to promote heresy, then he is no different from any other bishop, Catholic or Orthodox. But if he's truly infallible, then it is impossible for him to be a formal heretic under any circumstances. That's why your argument comes back to arguing that all popes have been orthodox. Because if the pope can be a formal heretic, then he is no longer the last safeguard of tradition, since someone else's judgment is needed to scrutinise his pronouncements for heresy.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2014, 05:59:39 PM »
I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me? :(

The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 06:04:50 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 Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2014, 10:15:22 PM »
I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me? :(
Absolutely. I think it's quite common on both sides of this debate to start seeing your opponents as interchangeable, without their own reasons for being engaged in this debate. Good for you for knowing your own limitations.
Quote
The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.
So what you're saying is that the idea of deposing a pope for heresy only applies to his private statements, not his ex cathedra ones. Fair enough. How do we know which is which, given that there can be no set form to an ex cathedra proclamation?
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline Laurentius

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2014, 01:47:22 AM »
Pope Honorius was excommunicated after his death, but still.

Holy Mother of God, save us!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2014, 08:25:59 AM »
I apologise for my remark. That's why I avoid debating because a bad side comes out of me. Please forgive me? :(
Absolutely. I think it's quite common on both sides of this debate to start seeing your opponents as interchangeable, without their own reasons for being engaged in this debate. Good for you for knowing your own limitations.
Quote
The pope in all other respects is the same as another bishop. The infallibility of his office is something absent from other bishops as he is the only one who can claim something as a binding truth on the whole church regarding faith and morals , and his statement will always be orthodox. Other bishops don't have this charism. You need to identify the difference between the Pope's ordinary office as any other Bishop and this extraordinary post of his office which is where no error can creep in. This extraordinary office is the reason why he is the safeguard of tradition.
So what you're saying is that the idea of deposing a pope for heresy only applies to his private statements, not his ex cathedra ones. Fair enough.

Yes

But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Quote
How do we know which is which, given that there can be no set form to an ex cathedra proclamation?

When he speaks definitively and conclusively on a matter as something to be held for all Catholics as true.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 08:30:15 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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2014, 08:32:29 AM »
Pope Honorius was excommunicated after his death, but still.



Yes on the charge of heresy by the eastern churches (which I've explained why their charge was wrong). In the West he was excommunicated not for heresy but for negligence/failure to stop the rise of heresy.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2014, 11:54:13 AM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2014, 12:40:51 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

Offline brastaseptim

  • Protopsáltis
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 954
  • From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2014, 01:21:07 PM »
Since I've recently ended up a Universal Reconciliationist, it really doesn't matter to me which Popes are heretics or not- because to me, just about everyone's been getting at least one thing wrong since the days of St. Augustine of Hippo.  :laugh: Yes, you heard that right- the Byzantine Catholic here has, after a long period of study and thought, become a horribly horrible Universalist heretic who believes in a temporary, purifying Hades, but not a fiery everlasting Hell. Everybody run away!
BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2014, 01:38:46 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.


Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2014, 01:50:48 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.



Because, as we all know, there is absolutely none of this in EO explanation of what is and is not an Ecumenical Council. </sarcasm>
"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 Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2014, 02:13:11 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

The college of bishops. Nothing circular here. Just like when the bishops many times argued with John XXII but at least at the time the issue had not been defined. But yes the bishops would determine this as has happened in the past
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 02:16:16 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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2014, 02:15:24 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.



Nothing circular at all. It's plain fact. I wont even bring up the circular reasoning of the orthodox when it comes to what constitutes an ecumenical council for that is one of the most blatant examples of circular reasoning.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Covert to Orthodoxy
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2014, 02:52:10 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates. 

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

The college of bishops. Nothing circular here. Just like when the bishops many times argued with John XXII but at least at the time the issue had not been defined. But yes the bishops would determine this as has happened in the past

Who is the judge of whether or not a Pope is teaching heresy?

The bishops. They know their faith... Well most of them... So lets say a Pope decided to teach that homosexuality is ok and not a sin or denied the real presence and is unwilling to retract His views... The cardinals and college of bishops would elect a new pope as the chair would be vacant.  The bishops would easily pick up his heresy and if he is unwilling to be corrected, he thereby leaves the post as Pope.

What's the process for how the "cardinals and college of bishops" determine that the chair is vacant because of heresy?  I can't seem to find it in your Code of Canon Law, though I'm finding a lot of other interesting things:

Quote
CIC

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.


Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.


Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.


Can. 343 It is for the synod of bishops to discuss the questions for consideration and express its wishes but not to resolve them or issue decrees about them unless in certain cases the Roman Pontiff has endowed it with deliberative power, in which case he ratifies the decisions of the synod[/color][/size].

Can. 344 The synod of bishops is directly subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff who:

1/ convokes a synod as often as it seems opportune to him and designates the place where its sessions are to be held;

2/ radios the election of members who must be elected according to the norm of special law and designates and appoints other members;

3/ determines at an appropriate time before the celebration of a synod the contents of the questions to be treated, according to the norm of special law;

4/ defines the agenda;

5/ presides at the synod personally or through others;

6/ concludes, transfers, suspends, and dissolves the synod.


Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.


Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:

1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;

2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;

3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;


Can. 1338 §1. The privations and prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 2 and 3, never affect powers, offices, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favors, titles, or insignia which are not subject to the power of the superior who establishes the penalty.


Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.



I would not know the exact process as such a thing we are talking about has never happened and need to deal with a heretical pope has not come up yet (Obviously some Orthodox and protestants would disagree).
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 02:55:18 PM by Mor Ephrem »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Covert to Orthodoxy
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2014, 04:07:53 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.  

Who determines this?

Ditto...the Catholic apologetic is seemingly quite circular.

The college of bishops. Nothing circular here. Just like when the bishops many times argued with John XXII but at least at the time the issue had not been defined. But yes the bishops would determine this as has happened in the past

Who is the judge of whether or not a Pope is teaching heresy?

The bishops. They know their faith... Well most of them... So lets say a Pope decided to teach that homosexuality is ok and not a sin or denied the real presence and is unwilling to retract His views... The cardinals and college of bishops would elect a new pope as the chair would be vacant.  The bishops would easily pick up his heresy and if he is unwilling to be corrected, he thereby leaves the post as Pope.

What's the process for how the "cardinals and college of bishops" determine that the chair is vacant because of heresy?  I can't seem to find it in your Code of Canon Law, though I'm finding a lot of other interesting things:

Quote
CIC

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.


Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.


Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.


Can. 343 It is for the synod of bishops to discuss the questions for consideration and express its wishes but not to resolve them or issue decrees about them unless in certain cases the Roman Pontiff has endowed it with deliberative power, in which case he ratifies the decisions of the synod[/color][/size].

Can. 344 The synod of bishops is directly subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff who:

1/ convokes a synod as often as it seems opportune to him and designates the place where its sessions are to be held;

2/ radios the election of members who must be elected according to the norm of special law and designates and appoints other members;

3/ determines at an appropriate time before the celebration of a synod the contents of the questions to be treated, according to the norm of special law;

4/ defines the agenda;

5/ presides at the synod personally or through others;

6/ concludes, transfers, suspends, and dissolves the synod.


Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.


Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:

1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;

2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;

3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;


Can. 1338 §1. The privations and prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 2 and 3, never affect powers, offices, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favors, titles, or insignia which are not subject to the power of the superior who establishes the penalty.


Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.



I would not know the exact process as such a thing we are talking about has never happened and need to deal with a heretical pope has not come up yet (Obviously some Orthodox and protestants would disagree).

Oh Mor. It would be nice if you could relent with regards to "internet shouting. Always misunderstanding things

Who mentioned a synod?
A conclave would be held to elect a new pope. Then a synod held to judge the antipope layman... Simple.

Secondly when the bishops correct the pope they are not judging him. They are correcting him. The catechism does not say the pope is above correction because they know it would contradict our blatant history and statements of popes.  Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the pope to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.
Quote
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction..."
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 04:15:21 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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Covert to Orthodoxy
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2014, 04:30:27 PM »
Oh Mor. It would be nice if you could relent with regards to "internet shouting. Always misunderstanding things

I don't know what you mean by "internet shouting", I just wanted to make sure certain things were highlighted lest they get lost in the shuffle. 

As for misunderstanding, you haven't really demonstrated that I'm misunderstanding anything.  You just keep spinning the top so that it doesn't slow down and eventually fall over and stop spinning. 

Quote
Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them. 

Quote
A conclave would be held to elect a new pope. Then a synod held to judge the antipope layman... Simple.

But this procedure is not laid out in any official, authoritative documents.  You might as well add that Our Lady of Fatima will appear, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and choose/crown a new Pope herself. 

Quote
Secondly when the bishops correct the pope they are not judging him. They are correcting him. The catechism does not say the pope is above correction because they know it would contradict our blatant history and statements of popes.


OK.

Quote
Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

Quote
For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Covert to Orthodoxy
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2014, 04:50:39 PM »
Oh Mor. It would be nice if you could relent with regards to "internet shouting. Always misunderstanding things

I don't know what you mean by "internet shouting", I just wanted to make sure certain things were highlighted lest they get lost in the shuffle. 

As for misunderstanding, you haven't really demonstrated that I'm misunderstanding anything.  You just keep spinning the top so that it doesn't slow down and eventually fall over and stop spinning. 

Alright.

Quote
Quote
Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them. 

Because there is the view that such a thing will not happen as it has never happened before that a pope is a formal heretic. Our Canon law deals with things that are regular to the church. A heretical pope has never been a reality and the question of a heretical pope is theoretical because as Robert Bellarmine says, such a thing cannot happen. Due to the fact that if it hasn't happened after 2000 years, but every other major see has fallen at one time or another, this must be a sign from heaven. But you probably wont accept this. Bit it is evidently the mindset if the church tacitly and through some fathers explicitly.


Quote
Quote
A conclave would be held to elect a new pope. Then a synod held to judge the antipope layman... Simple.

But this procedure is not laid out in any official, authoritative documents.  You might as well add that Our Lady of Fatima will appear, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, and choose/crown a new Pope herself. 

The procedure of an ecumenical council wasn't laid down until it happened. It's just the logical order of things as the canons direct the order of things to happen this way implicitly.


Quote
Quote
Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

Nonsense even in your church and council history proves this. Only a catholic can hold a catholic office. If the pope today denies the Holy Trinity and accepts arianism and refuses to renounce this view , he is no more a catholic and loses his office as the fathers testified that such a man loses his jurisdiction. Robert Bellarmine points this fact out and even calls upon the situation of St Cyprian and Novatian and what St.Cyprian said to Novatian proving this fact.

Quote
Quote
Quote
For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

In perfect harmony for they are not dealing with a pope but a layman! For all your efforts of quoting the canons, this fact seems to have alluded you and thus you endeavored into an exercise in futility
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Covert to Orthodoxy
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2014, 05:27:09 PM »
Quote
Quote
Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them. 

Because there is the view that such a thing will not happen as it has never happened before that a pope is a formal heretic. Our Canon law deals with things that are regular to the church. A heretical pope has never been a reality and the question of a heretical pope is theoretical because as Robert Bellarmine says, such a thing cannot happen. Due to the fact that if it hasn't happened after 2000 years, but every other major see has fallen at one time or another, this must be a sign from heaven. But you probably wont accept this. Bit it is evidently the mindset if the church tacitly and through some fathers explicitly.

Then why do you talk about it like it's a thing?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

Nonsense even in your church and council history proves this. Only a catholic can hold a catholic office. If the pope today denies the Holy Trinity and accepts arianism and refuses to renounce this view , he is no more a catholic and loses his office as the fathers testified that such a man loses his jurisdiction. Robert Bellarmine points this fact out and even calls upon the situation of St Cyprian and Novatian and what St.Cyprian said to Novatian proving this fact.

Our Church and conciliar history proves it.  Yours has added a bunch of other stuff, however.  So I don't see why it's nonsensical for me to say that "a heretical Pope is Pope because he was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope".  It's just as circular as anything else in your argument. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

In perfect harmony for they are not dealing with a pope but a layman! For all your efforts of quoting the canons, this fact seems to have alluded you and thus you endeavored into an exercise in futility

You're right.  I'm going to join RCIA right now.  I can't believe I missed it, it's so clear. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Covert to Orthodoxy
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2014, 05:55:05 PM »
Quote
Quote
Who mentioned a synod?

I don't know who mentioned a synod.  I was just looking through your canon law to find out who/what would be the entity that decides whether a Pope was a heretic.  You claim it is "the (college of) bishops", but among the many things that are said about bishops as a whole, "deciding whether the Pope is a heretic" is not one of them.  

Because there is the view that such a thing will not happen as it has never happened before that a pope is a formal heretic. Our Canon law deals with things that are regular to the church. A heretical pope has never been a reality and the question of a heretical pope is theoretical because as Robert Bellarmine says, such a thing cannot happen. Due to the fact that if it hasn't happened after 2000 years, but every other major see has fallen at one time or another, this must be a sign from heaven. But you probably wont accept this. Bit it is evidently the mindset if the church tacitly and through some fathers explicitly.

Then why do you talk about it like it's a thing?

Because people here are talking about it like its a thing. I entertain the idea as various saints have. Even through they admit that such a thing will not happen. Yet infallibility means the Popes cannot declare heresy to be the teaching of the church. What they privately believed is not protected by infailability. So although because of history and other things we are convinced it wont happen, the fact that in his ordinary office it is a possibility, the idea must be entertained
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Neither can any of the bishops depose him. If the pope rejects correction and chooses to teach against any de fide doctrine even after correction, how can it be said he is pope? He is an antipope from that point onwards!

How?  Simple.  He was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope.  He was not elected as an antipope.  If there is no official body, whether you call it conclave or council or synod or college or whatever, that can a) officially declare a judgement on a Pope and b) then proceed to elect a new Pope if required, I don't see how you can get rid of him unless you convince him to retire and/or kill him.

Nonsense even in your church and council history proves this. Only a catholic can hold a catholic office. If the pope today denies the Holy Trinity and accepts arianism and refuses to renounce this view , he is no more a catholic and loses his office as the fathers testified that such a man loses his jurisdiction. Robert Bellarmine points this fact out and even calls upon the situation of St Cyprian and Novatian and what St.Cyprian said to Novatian proving this fact.

Our Church and conciliar history proves it.  Yours has added a bunch of other stuff, however.  So I don't see why it's nonsensical for me to say that "a heretical Pope is Pope because he was canonically elected Pope when he was canonically elected Pope".  It's just as circular as anything else in your argument.  

Lol that's our history also. Great St. Cyprian was using circular reasoning.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
For how can a non-catholic hold a catholic office? The bishops as Pope Innocent said will show the poor to be judged, not judge him. The will show his formal heresy and confirm his resignation via heresy. That is they will show him to be deprived of his office. As Pope Adrian said, the only thing that makes the superios subject to subordinates is heresy as a heretic is neither a priest nor a catholic.

And how does that square with current canon law, both Vatican Councils, etc.?

In perfect harmony for they are not dealing with a pope but a layman! For all your efforts of quoting the canons, this fact seems to have alluded you and thus you endeavored into an exercise in futility

You're right.  I'm going to join RCIA right now.  I can't believe I missed it, it's so clear.  

Amen! Welcome home! ;D
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 06:25:42 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 podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2014, 08:49:23 PM »
But I must add that nobody deposes a pope. No such thing can be done. He , because of his unrelenting formal heresy,cedes his office or abdicates.



Because, as we all know, there is absolutely none of this in EO explanation of what is and is not an Ecumenical Council. </sarcasm>


But...but...but...that's....d...d...different.

Offline Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2014, 11:07:27 PM »
Does it need to be different? Catholic apologists are the ones who brought up this idea that the papacy provides a logically impeccable, non-circular means of determining what is true doctrine (e.g., that "Why I Didn't Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy" article on Catholic Answers). Orthodox have never claimed this, to my knowledge, about ecumenical councils or anything else, including the Vincentian Canon, and so we're not exactly being hypocritical here.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2014, 11:10:25 PM by Regnare »
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2014, 11:39:16 PM »
Orthodox have never claimed this, to my knowledge, about ecumenical councils or anything else, including the Vincentian Canon, and so we're not exactly being hypocritical here.

Are you kidding?

 ::)
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2014, 11:57:28 PM »
Are you kidding?

 ::)
Nope. I'm willing to admit that my experience is limited, but I can say at the very least that I've seen Orthodox apologists who criticise this idea on the Catholic side without trying to propose it on their own.
Also, I'm not sure where these other Orthodox are hiding: I've seen this argument come up very very often among Catholics --in fact, it was one of my first posts on this forum-- but never among Orthodox.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2014, 12:10:59 AM »
Are you kidding?

 ::)
Nope. I'm willing to admit that my experience is limited, but I can say at the very least that I've seen Orthodox apologists who criticise this idea on the Catholic side without trying to propose it on their own.
Also, I'm not sure where these other Orthodox are hiding: I've seen this argument come up very very often among Catholics --in fact, it was one of my first posts on this forum-- but never among Orthodox.

I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.


PROCLAMATION OF THE SYNODICON OF ORTHODOXY:
 
As the Prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the Teachers have dogmatized, as the Universe has agreed, as Grace has shown forth, as Truth has revealed, as falsehood has been dissolved, as Wisdom has presented, as Christ has awarded, let us declare, let us assert, let us preach in like manner Christ our true God and honor His Saints in words, in writings, in thoughts, in deeds, in churches, in holy icons — worshiping Him as God and Lord and honoring them as His true servants of the master of all, and offering to them due veneration.
This is the Faith of the Apostles! This is the Faith of the Fathers! This is the Faith of the Orthodox! This is the Faith, which has established the Universe!

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2014, 12:13:40 AM »
Are you kidding?

 ::)
Nope. I'm willing to admit that my experience is limited, but I can say at the very least that I've seen Orthodox apologists who criticise this idea on the Catholic side without trying to propose it on their own.
Also, I'm not sure where these other Orthodox are hiding: I've seen this argument come up very very often among Catholics --in fact, it was one of my first posts on this forum-- but never among Orthodox.

Then you haven't read a lot of threads on this board.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2014, 12:32:39 AM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?" It's simply a statement that this is our faith and the faith of the Church, without any explanation of how this particular conciliar proclamation is authoritative apart from that it's what we recognise as Tradition.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2014, 12:42:28 AM »
It's simply a statement that this is our faith and the faith of the Church, without any explanation of how this particular conciliar proclamation is authoritative apart from that it's what we recognise as Tradition.



What more authority do you need?

Offline Laurentius

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Look at the birds of the air... (Mt 6:26)
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2014, 03:40:51 AM »
The way I see it, the Councils and Tradition witness about each other, and they equally witness about Jesus Christ in whom we supernaturally believe.

Catholics say they believe in the Pope because Papacy and Tradition witness about each other. We do not agree with this, thanks to history – their novelties are a fact.

Latins cannot depose their Pope because they believe he "is" Tradition. We know that he can teach new things, even if they say it is not new.

Holy Mother of God, save us!

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2014, 10:20:43 AM »
I'd suggest that Regnare refrain from following internet apologetics while a catachumen and discuss these questions about the role of councils and church doctrine with his priest or teacher.

Offline Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2014, 10:24:41 AM »
I'd suggest that Regnare refrain from following internet apologetics while a catachumen and discuss these questions about the role of councils and church doctrine with his priest or teacher.
That's fair, but I'm interested to know what in what I've said is problematic. I haven't denied the authority of councils at any point.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,439
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2014, 07:33:28 AM »
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?" It's simply a statement that this is our faith and the faith of the Church, without any explanation of how this particular conciliar proclamation is authoritative apart from that it's what we recognise as Tradition.
Nice post. The faith is a matter of tradition, and is not based upon what a hierarch of a particular Church may teach at a given point in history.
"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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2014, 05:11:27 AM »
I'd suggest that Regnare refrain from following internet apologetics while a catachumen and discuss these questions about the role of councils and church doctrine with his priest or teacher.

Why is it that I only ever see this snide and dismissive remark when the one making it is on the losing side of an argument?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 05:34:05 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2014, 05:29:06 AM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline emanresu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2014, 12:02:52 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 12:03:25 PM by emanresu »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2014, 01:33:05 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements. When did a Pope confirm the Deity of Christ ex cathedra for example? And if the Pope confirms it simply by believing it, then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #51 on: December 23, 2014, 06:17:57 PM »
I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...

I remember reading about that story, although it was most likely apocryphal (no records from the time mention it, if I remember correctly).

If it were true, though, wouldn't it constitute a forbidden act of divination, if not necromancy? Venerating relics is one thing, but actually consulting them for answers to your own questions is quite another, and seems almost like witchcraft. Miracles can happen, but one of the things you don't do is actively seek them out or try to "provoke" one.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #52 on: December 23, 2014, 09:27:11 PM »
I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...

I remember reading about that story, although it was most likely apocryphal (no records from the time mention it, if I remember correctly).

If it were true, though, wouldn't it constitute a forbidden act of divination, if not necromancy? Venerating relics is one thing, but actually consulting them for answers to your own questions is quite another, and seems almost like witchcraft. Miracles can happen, but one of the things you don't do is actively seek them out or try to "provoke" one.
Makes sense.

I don't put any stock in the story myself and I really wish AFR didn't repeat it. It just seems to be analogous to the kind of "surety" which the Catholic Church and a lot of Protestants all seek.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 09:28:16 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #53 on: December 26, 2014, 02:35:55 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements.

I've never understood the need for a list. Everything Thais in the faith before and leading up to Vatican 1 had been already known to be de fide. Various catechisms and ecumenical councils contain our faith. The only two to be knowledgeable about are  Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissmus Deus which are later explicit affirmations of the ancient faith.

When did a Pope confirm the Deity of Christ ex cathedra for example?

When he ratified the council of nicaea and the various letters of the popes on the issue teaching it.

And if the Pope confirms it simply by believing it,

He confirmed the council.

then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?

Because it wasn't a matter of faith in his eyes nor morals but mere politics. He as well as the west were reluctant to condemn the three chapters and their persons because they were worried it would undermine the authority of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon.
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #54 on: December 26, 2014, 04:25:45 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements.

I've never understood the need for a list. Everything Thais in the faith before and leading up to Vatican 1 had been already known to be de fide. Various catechisms and ecumenical councils contain our faith. The only two to be knowledgeable about are  Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissmus Deus which are later explicit affirmations of the ancient faith.
So when JP II kisses the Koran and says that Islam is a beautiful religion, you don't think any past Popes would disagree with this as a matter of faith of morals? Imagine JP II (or Francis) and Boniface VII having a conversation on the fate of pious Muslims.

How about Popes that have supported the Donation of Constantine, the trial of Galileo (or even Bruno), the Inquisition and Reconquista of Spain?

And then there's Inter caetera:
Quote
We have indeed learned that you, who for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants, having been up to the present time greatly engaged in the siege and recovery of the kingdom itself of Granada were unable to accomplish this holy and praiseworthy purpose; but the said kingdom having at length been regained, as was pleasing to the Lord, you, with the wish to fulfill your desire, chose our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking, whom you furnished with ships and men equipped for like designs, not without the greatest hardships, dangers, and expenses, to make diligent quest for these remote and unknown mainlands and islands through the sea, where hitherto no one had sailed; and they at length, with divine aid and with the utmost diligence sailing in the ocean sea, discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands that hitherto had not been discovered by others; wherein dwell very many peoples living in peace, and, as reported, going unclothed, and not eating flesh. Moreover, as your aforesaid envoys are of opinion, these very peoples living in the said islands and countries believe in one God, the Creator in heaven, and seem sufficiently disposed to embrace the Catholic faith and be trained in good morals.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Alex06/alex06inter.htm

Is Spain still the rightful and God given ruler of Columbus' "discoveries" for the instruction of the natives in the Catholic faith? I doubt Pope Francis would agree.

How about Pius IX's puritanical regime in the Papal States that included reopening the Jewish ghettos? Was Garibaldi not an immoral heretic in his eyes for opposing the rights of God's man on earth to be a temporal ruler?

If you don't have an exact list, then the vague criteria of infallible when speaking ex cathedra as to faith and morals proves far too much. And your statements bellow seem to only confirm that.

then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?

Because it wasn't a matter of faith in his eyes nor morals but mere politics. He as well as the west were reluctant to condemn the three chapters and their persons because they were worried it would undermine the authority of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon.
It doesn't matter what his motives were. There's all kinds of sincere heretics, are there not?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #55 on: December 26, 2014, 05:04:23 PM »
I don't mean to second guess your priest or whoever is teaching  your class, but you could  start with this, from the seventh Ecumenical Council.
This isn't from a class, just my general experience with (admittedly internet) apologetics. And I'm not sure what the Synodicon has to do with this. None of this would actually answer a Catholic's question of "How do you know this is the faith of the Apostles (without the pope to confirm it)? How do you know this is what the Church has received (without the pope to confirm it)?"

Precisely. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy is totally irrelevant, because it never makes any claim as to how one may systematically assess a teaching and determine if it was defined infallibly or not. The papacy on the other hand, according to Roman Catholic internet apologists, is supposed to solve precisely this problem. But then these confused apologists introduce all sorts of absurdities, like pointing out that while popes technically may not be judged, they still can remove themselves from the Church, and a synod may then be convened to recognize this fact (this argument in fact seems to be an absolute necessity for your historically informed apologist, as he otherwise has no way of explaining how popes sometimes found themselves being deposed). But that only returns us to the problem which the papacy was supposed to solve. If a synod is convened to declare that the Pope by some heresy or by some malfeasance (simony being the particularly favorite charge of synods throughout history looking to depose a pope), how are we to know that the synod has not erred? Likewise, there are similar issues with knowing whether or not a papal statement is infallible.

Bingo. It becomes an endless maze when it comes to judging a pope to be a heretic.

Principle 1: No earthly authority (including all the bishops of the Church) can judge and/or depose a pope.

Principle 2: Only God Himself can judge a pope.

Therefore if a Council meets to declare a pope ipso facto to have fallen from office it seems that they have in fact made a judgment upon him since God has not revealed in any tangible way that the pope has, in fact, lost his Office.

But the pope and he alone is the final authority on what is or is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. Therefore, for a Council to declare the Office vacant is to, in practice and also in theory, to place a Council above the pope.

However, Vatican I states that the pope declares on matters of Faith and Morals infallibly without the consent of the Church.

So…….You see the confusion that that has been wrought over the centuries as layer upon layer has been added to the list of papal pretensions.

I guess every judging Synod needs their own St. Euphemia's corpse to decide the outcome...


It seems to me that everything else aside, the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncement doesn't work as a guarantee of the Church because we don't even have a list of infallible pronouncements.

I've never understood the need for a list. Everything Thais in the faith before and leading up to Vatican 1 had been already known to be de fide. Various catechisms and ecumenical councils contain our faith. The only two to be knowledgeable about are  Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissmus Deus which are later explicit affirmations of the ancient faith.
So when JP II kisses the Koran and says that Islam is a beautiful religion, you don't think any past Popes would disagree with this as a matter of faith of morals? Imagine JP II (or Francis) and Boniface VII having a conversation on the fate of pious Muslims.

I can't pretend to know how that would go. St John Paul kissing the Qur'an was simply an act of reverence. I disagree with it but it is not a heresy or anything of the sort.

Quote
How about Popes that have supported the Donation of Constantine, the trial of Galileo (or even Bruno), the Inquisition and Reconquista of Spain?

I get tired of this. The donation was first of all thought to be real. Secondly it was not used as the primal basis for asserting papal authority but rather a piece of extra information that "added fuel to the fire" so to speak. They already asserted papal claims without the donation. The Galileo trial was all politics. I can give a good account of it if you want.

Quote
And then there's Inter caetera:
Quote
We have indeed learned that you, who for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants, having been up to the present time greatly engaged in the siege and recovery of the kingdom itself of Granada were unable to accomplish this holy and praiseworthy purpose; but the said kingdom having at length been regained, as was pleasing to the Lord, you, with the wish to fulfill your desire, chose our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking, whom you furnished with ships and men equipped for like designs, not without the greatest hardships, dangers, and expenses, to make diligent quest for these remote and unknown mainlands and islands through the sea, where hitherto no one had sailed; and they at length, with divine aid and with the utmost diligence sailing in the ocean sea, discovered certain very remote islands and even mainlands that hitherto had not been discovered by others; wherein dwell very many peoples living in peace, and, as reported, going unclothed, and not eating flesh. Moreover, as your aforesaid envoys are of opinion, these very peoples living in the said islands and countries believe in one God, the Creator in heaven, and seem sufficiently disposed to embrace the Catholic faith and be trained in good morals.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Alex06/alex06inter.htm

Is Spain still the rightful and God given ruler of Columbus' "discoveries" for the instruction of the natives in the Catholic faith? I doubt Pope Francis would agree.

No, that's because the americas are catholic now. But even then it was a mere affirmation that to spread the word of God is a good thing. Hyperbole put aside. You are really grasping at straws now...

Quote
How about Pius IX's puritanical regime in the Papal States that included reopening the Jewish ghettos? Was Garibaldi not an immoral heretic in his eyes for opposing the rights of God's man on earth to be a temporal ruler?

What does this have to do with pontifical infallibility? So far all that you said seems more like you venting of how bad the popes have been and other personal grievances rather than a rebuttal to how we can know something is infallible... Sure may be Pius did some bad things but nobody claimed the popes are impeccable

Quote
If you don't have an exact list, then the vague criteria of infallible when speaking ex cathedra as to faith and morals proves far too much. And your statements bellow seem to only confirm that.

Lol but none of what you mentioned were ex cathedra statements. I know this by looking at the guidelines which are far from vague and actually quite precise and narrow. Every body knows inefibilis deus was and ex cathedra statement and so with the decree on the assumption.

Quote
then why isn't Vigilius' refusal to condemn the Three Chapters considered an ex cathedra confirmation of them?

Because it wasn't a matter of faith in his eyes nor morals but mere politics. He as well as the west were reluctant to condemn the three chapters and their persons because they were worried it would undermine the authority of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon.
It doesn't matter what his motives were. There's all kinds of sincere heretics, are there not?

Lol Vigilius never challenged the condemnation on theological grounds (that would constitute heresy) but rather challenged the motivation behind the condemnation of the persons in question as an ecumenical council saw fit to leave them be, why was it necessary to undermine Chalcedon? Please, if you haven't, read about the real dispute and not the smokescreen used as the battlefield.

By calling Vigilius heretical for upholding Chalcedon is to call the 4th Ecumenical council heretical.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2014, 05:15:49 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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #56 on: December 26, 2014, 06:49:03 PM »
By calling Vigilius heretical for upholding Chalcedon is to call the 4th Ecumenical council heretical.

 ;)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #57 on: December 26, 2014, 08:25:12 PM »
By calling Vigilius heretical for upholding Chalcedon is to call the 4th Ecumenical council heretical.

 ;)

LOL  :D
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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #58 on: December 27, 2014, 07:48:30 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #59 on: December 27, 2014, 08:39:37 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..
« Last Edit: December 27, 2014, 08:47:50 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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2014, 01:58:20 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2014, 06:03:02 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 06:09:35 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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2014, 08:25:39 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2014, 08:33:00 AM »
I'm still not seeing how his earlier writings in defense of the Three Chapters can be "grandfathered" into orthodoxy (little o) just because he eventually ended up on the right side of theological history, though. It's complicated.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2014, 11:12:27 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.
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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2014, 11:14:25 AM »
I'm still not seeing how his earlier writings in defense of the Three Chapters can be "grandfathered" into orthodoxy (little o) just because he eventually ended up on the right side of theological history, though. It's complicated.

His earlier writing was defense based on chalcedon which acknowledged that the letter of Ibas could be read in an orthodox light. That's why chalcedon never condemned it as they took it in that manner. The 5th council saw it differently...
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 Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2014, 04:58:20 PM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.



I will say that's one of the great things about being Orthodox. If a bishop writes something heretical we can call a spade a spade. We don't have to spend extraordinary amounts of time and energy trying to explain how he didn't really mean what he said.  :D

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2014, 07:24:23 PM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.



I will say that's one of the great things about being Orthodox. If a bishop writes something heretical we can call a spade a spade. We don't have to spend extraordinary amounts of time and energy trying to explain how he didn't really mean what he said.  :D

Soooo Chalcedon  was heretical? Because that's all vigilius did. He upheld Chakcedon
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #68 on: December 28, 2014, 07:35:37 PM »
Chalcedon is the gift that keeps on giving.  A veritable Christmas every day. 

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2014, 08:07:32 PM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.

Evidently you've read neither the acts of Chalcedon nor the acts of Second Constantinople. Dogmatically, the two councils were in alignment, though Second Constantinople extended the dogmatic judgments of Chalcedon. Despite Vigilius' protestations to the contrary, the letter of Ibas was never fully accepted at Chalcedon. The Roman legates, it is true, essentially jumped the gun by declaring the letter orthodox (though they likely did not fully understand it), and because it was considered in Roman society an unthinkable breach of decorum for junior judges to contradict senior ones, the council fathers were placed into an awkward position (as Price notes in both his translation of the acts of Chalcedon and of Second Constantinople), one which the newly elevated Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, solved by confirming the Roman legates' exoneration of Ibas with the implication that Ibas was senile rather than with an approval his letter.

What is it, by the way, with you and fancying that your judgment is better than that of an ecumenical council?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 08:09:13 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2014, 12:17:30 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 12:19:05 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #71 on: December 29, 2014, 05:39:48 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.

Evidently you've read neither the acts of Chalcedon nor the acts of Second Constantinople. Dogmatically, the two councils were in alignment, though Second Constantinople extended the dogmatic judgments of Chalcedon. Despite Vigilius' protestations to the contrary, the letter of Ibas was never fully accepted at Chalcedon. The Roman legates, it is true, essentially jumped the gun by declaring the letter orthodox (though they likely did not fully understand it), and because it was considered in Roman society an unthinkable breach of decorum for junior judges to contradict senior ones, the council fathers were placed into an awkward position (as Price notes in both his translation of the acts of Chalcedon and of Second Constantinople), one which the newly elevated Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, solved by confirming the Roman legates' exoneration of Ibas with the implication that Ibas was senile rather than with an approval his letter.

What is it, by the way, with you and fancying that your judgment is better than that of an ecumenical council?


I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 05:41:09 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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #72 on: December 29, 2014, 05:58:27 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

However Papal infallibility does not even factor in here once you realize that vigilius did not make ex cathedra pronouncements but rather what he was issuing was pretty much the same as an encyclical on a matter.  Further Vigilius only signed those statements of faith  under duress. So even if it was an attempt to speak ex cathedra on the face of it, it failed by this standard that he signed it under duress and not free will.
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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #73 on: December 29, 2014, 09:15:28 AM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim, or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere? I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 09:18:13 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #74 on: December 29, 2014, 09:16:45 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline emanresu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2014, 09:26:58 AM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?

The following is according to RC theology:

There are different ways in which the Church acts/speaks infallibly. One is the Extraordinary Magisterium (pope speaking ex cathedra on a matter of Faith or Morals). There is also the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium where Tradition is considered infallible (decrees of Ecumenical Councils, constant teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals etc.)

Canonizations have taken place in different ways at different times throughout the history of the Church. However the RCC considers these Canonizations, in whichever form the "official" proclamation takes place to be protected by the Church's Infallibility.

It has become fashionable for some Catholic traditionalists, in the wake of the canonizations of JPII and JXXIII, to downplay or outright deny that it has ever been a teaching of the Church that canonizations are protected by the Church's infallibility. They often point to the Vatican I dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus which states when the pope is speaking infallibly. To me this ignores a couple of facts:

1) The Church's current mode of canonizing saints is a fairly recent process stretching back to about the time just before the Council of Trent. What of all the canonizations prior to this point? It seems to also imply that the only dogmas that we know for sure are dogmas are those defined Ex Cathedra by the pope. Of course, 99.9% of the dogmas of the RC Faith did not come about in this fashion.

2) Those who deny that the pope seeks to impose a matter of Faith on the Church when he canonizes a saint have to ignore the language used (We define, proclaim, profess....etc) and the fact that the cultus of the saint is assumed into the public life and prayer of the Church in the form of Offices, Masses and feastdays.

It is my personal opinion that those who deny the infallibility of canonizations are doing so because that is the only way that the RCC can still be the True Church.

Premise 1: JPII and JXXIII cannot be saints.
Premise 2: But they were canonized by the pope in solemn language.

Ergo: Canonizations must not really be infallible.

I personally can't wait to see what happens next year when Paul VI is "canonized."

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2014, 03:25:34 PM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?

Oh that's a whole 'nother topic. Canonizations go through different process of getting true verifiable miracles  and assessing the life (not theology as per many saints who have erred) of the person in question

Judging someone's supposed heresy us not infallible and that is standard catholic teaching. Case in point: Oriental orthodox were declared to be monophysites by the CC for over 1000 years. We have later revoked this charge and deemed their Christology orthodox.

Just as the church of the east and their Christology and all their father erroneously condemned

Last point is the case of Honorius and the 6th council. They deemed him a monothelite though  in actual fact he was orthodox as many scholars have shown and any basic reading of the letter that had him condemned shows. There numerous cases to prove this point of how ecumenical councils judgments on pwrsosn are not infallible and can be overturned. Another case in point is this very thread, Chalcedon vs Constantinople where the people in question were restored but later were charged with heresy.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 03:27:35 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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2014, 03:34:15 PM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim,

The emperor made an agreement to condemn the persons in question and the fathers attending the council agreed to this clause. Vigilius and the west refused and said that if they were to attend, they would vote against condemnation

Quote
or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?

Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

Quote
I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.

Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 03:36:58 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 TheMathematician

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,007
  • Formerly known as Montalo
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ACROD
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2014, 04:44:38 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2014, 05:04:26 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)
Then he would receive major accolades from these people: www.womenpriests.org and www.huffingtonpost.com
and major protests from these people: www.traditio.com
God bless!

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2014, 06:28:46 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Completely impossible. God would strike him dead first. Didn't you know that?  8)

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2014, 10:54:06 PM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim,

The emperor made an agreement to condemn the persons in question and the fathers attending the council agreed to this clause. Vigilius and the west refused and said that if they were to attend, they would vote against condemnation

Quote
or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?

Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

Quote
I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.

Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.

I didn't ask you to repeat the claim, Wandile, I asked you to substantiate it. I have read the Acts of Second Constantinople in translation, as well as the relevant documents concerning the preparation of the council, and I do not remember the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas being on the agenda, nor a moment when such an item was struck from the agenda because of the objections of the pope and the Western bishops. I grant to you, however, that my memory is imperfect, and that I very well could be remembering incorrectly, hence why I am asking you to substantiate the claim with evidence from the acts of the council or the pre-conciliar documents.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 10:56:41 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: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #82 on: December 30, 2014, 11:44:00 PM »
I don't see Wandile claiming he has better judgment. He's just saying that the 5th Council contradicted the 4th. He might be right, he might be wrong. But I see anything untoward about trying to point out a fact.

Thank you

Quote
Though if the 5th did contradict the 4th, what does that mean for the infallibility of the subsequent Popes who failed to overturn one or the other?

Like I said, the judgments on personas are not infallible. At least in RC theology.

They are not? Why then do so many Latin theologians seem to be under the impression that canonizations are a regular exercise of the church's infallibility?

Oh that's a whole 'nother topic. Canonizations go through different process of getting true verifiable miracles  and assessing the life (not theology as per many saints who have erred) of the person in question

Judging someone's supposed heresy us not infallible and that is standard catholic teaching. Case in point: Oriental orthodox were declared to be monophysites by the CC for over 1000 years. We have later revoked this charge and deemed their Christology orthodox.
so your doctrine develops in circles. Just like your "infallible" supreme pontiffs contradict each other.
Just as the church of the east and their Christology and all their father erroneously condemned
you mean erroneously exonerated by the Vatican. Anything to entice into submission.
Last point is the case of Honorius and the 6th council. They deemed him a monothelite though  in actual fact he was orthodox as many scholars have shown and any basic reading of the letter that had him condemned shows. There numerous cases to prove this point of how ecumenical councils judgments on pwrsosn are not infallible and can be overturned. Another case in point is this very thread, Chalcedon vs Constantinople where the people in question were restored but later were charged with heresy.
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
And Pope Honorius is still a heretic-"anathema!"

That "basic reading of the letter" that had him condemned-can you link to it? Quote it? Cite it?
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 TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #83 on: December 30, 2014, 11:52:31 PM »
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?
God bless!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #84 on: December 31, 2014, 12:44:16 AM »
I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.

We know that they would have condemned the persons of Theodoret and Ibas? Can you substantiate this claim,

The emperor made an agreement to condemn the persons in question and the fathers attending the council agreed to this clause. Vigilius and the west refused and said that if they were to attend, they would vote against condemnation

Quote
or like the other incorrect claims you have made in this thread, did this claim come from nowhere?

Correct claims brother. You are the one denying the evidence and playing gymnastics to make contradictory actions agree.

Quote
I don't ever remember reading that the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas was ever on the agenda.

Just like honorius' wasn't initially but yet letter were read and we know what happened. Ibas had been declared orthodox  after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril and subsequently restored to his see by Chalcedon and die in communion with the church.

I didn't ask you to repeat the claim, Wandile, I asked you to substantiate it. I have read the Acts of Second Constantinople in translation, as well as the relevant documents concerning the preparation of the council, and I do not remember the condemnation of the persons of Theodoret and Ibas being on the agenda, nor a moment when such an item was struck from the agenda because of the objections of the pope and the Western bishops. I grant to you, however, that my memory is imperfect, and that I very well could be remembering incorrectly, hence why I am asking you to substantiate the claim with evidence from the acts of the council or the pre-conciliar documents.
I have the Acts of the Council right in front of me, but I'll let Wandile explain himself.

In the meantime, Richard Price, in the introduction to his translation of the Acts of Constantinople II (pp. 36-7) brings up an interesting tidbit:
Quote
In the preparation of the convocation of the Council of Trent in 1545 Cardinal Jacobatius [Domenico Giacobazzi] produced in 1538 his Tractatus de Concilio,dedicated to Pope Paul III.  In it he raises the question whether the secular rulers should  have a role in church councils, and replies that should when the faith is at issue, since 'the cause of the faith is a universal cause, and concerns not only the clergy but also the laity'. This, he continues, is supremely true of the emperor, who is 'the master of the universe, and the prince and head of the laity' and also 'the advocate of the Church'.  He adds that, if at a council the pope himself were to be suspected of heresy, it would fall to the emperor to require from him a statement of faith. Justinian's treatment of Vigilius should be viewed in this light.
He points out that the edition of Tractatus de Concilio he uses was reprinted by the Congregation for Propagation of the Faith in Rome in 1870, i.e. during Vatican I.

Ooops!

This comes up also in a study of the robber council of Florence:
Quote
For the authentic Catholic tradition, it is worth looking ahead to what is arguably the most important work ever written on conciliar procedure, namely the Tractatus de Concilio by Cardinal Giacobazzi (or Jacobatius), written at the request of Pope Paul III in preparation for the convening of the Council of Trent and published in 1538. In it Giacobazzi raises the question of whether the emperor should have a role in church councils, and, citing various authorities (which I omit), replies as follows:
Since the emperor is the master of the universe, a lesser luminary, and the prince and head of the laity, and since a general council has to deal with all the laity as whole, it is right that at least their superior should be summoned. To take part in a council and have a voice pertains more to jurisdiction than to order ... The emperor ought to be summoned to a council, because of the general jurisdiction that he has over the laity ... The emperor is part of a council, especially  when the faith is being discussed, since he is the advocate of the Church. And his involvement is such that, if a pope is suspected of heresy, the emperor can require him to state what he holds on the subject of the faith.
Sylvester Syropoulos on Politics and Culture in the Fifteenth-Century Mediterranean
https://books.google.com/books?id=hs-pBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=%22if+a+pope+is+suspected+of+heresy%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J3mjVKi2EJKuyATW0YCYAw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22if%20a%20pope%20is%20suspected%20of%20heresy%22&f=false

So much for the supreme pontiff's infallibility, and his being judged by no one, including a council, on faith and morals.
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: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #85 on: December 31, 2014, 01:56:56 AM »
Wandile, have you even read Vigilius' first constitutum? He explicitly defends the letter of Ibas.

That's because he had never read it and neither did the west. They defended everything on premise of upholding chalcedon. Whereas the east were seeking a compromise of sorts to bring back the monophysites. The writings were heretical true. Yet Chalcedon saw fit to not condemn these men so why was it now ok to just go against an ecumenical council? That was how Vigilius and the west saw it

Even the eastern bishops at first had the same objections to the emperors proposal as the west but east feared going against the emperor and thus one by one they Changed their position. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it.  The west didn't really have the hand of the emperor over th em and that's why the west was more resolute in their defense of chalcedon. It wasn't a matter of heresy vs orthodoxy but rather upholding chalcedon or going against it..

Never read it? Now I know that you haven't read the First Constitutum, because Vigilius quotes the letter verbatim when he is attempting to defend its difficult passages (i.e., the ones condemned by the council).

Yeah?

Vigilius defence can be explained by the facts that because chalcedon had the letters and saw no reason to condemn these people. Even with knowledge of the controversial passages. So why should he? It's that simple.  Further he showed how certain things can be interpreted in an orthodox light. In the first Constitutum,  Vigilius decided that Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were indeed heretical, but Theodore himself ought not to be condemned, since he was never given an opportunity to face charges while alive. Secondly Theodoret should not to be charged with insulting St. Cyril, as he denied authorship of such writings and St. Cyril himself never made such an accusation, so the authentic works of Theodoret should not be generally condemned, except for four Nestorian propositions they contain and lastly that Ibas had been declared orthodox at Chalcedon even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council disagreed as it indeed condemned the letter. The Pope, by the way, completely withdrew and annulled his defense of the letter of Ibas and condemned it.

Yes I know, the 5th ecumenical council contradicted the 4th... And I know about Vigilius' retraction which caused a huge schism in the west lasting 150 years. The whole issue was the west and (in the beginning also the east) wanted to uphold the authority of chalcedon. They eventually achieve that by not condemning their persons bar one which kept to chalcedon. What the emperor wanted was a complete 180 on chalcedon and vigilius and west wouldn't stand for it.

Evidently you've read neither the acts of Chalcedon nor the acts of Second Constantinople. Dogmatically, the two councils were in alignment, though Second Constantinople extended the dogmatic judgments of Chalcedon. Despite Vigilius' protestations to the contrary, the letter of Ibas was never fully accepted at Chalcedon. The Roman legates, it is true, essentially jumped the gun by declaring the letter orthodox (though they likely did not fully understand it), and because it was considered in Roman society an unthinkable breach of decorum for junior judges to contradict senior ones, the council fathers were placed into an awkward position (as Price notes in both his translation of the acts of Chalcedon and of Second Constantinople), one which the newly elevated Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, solved by confirming the Roman legates' exoneration of Ibas with the implication that Ibas was senile rather than with an approval his letter.

What is it, by the way, with you and fancying that your judgment is better than that of an ecumenical council?


I never even began to say doctrinally they contradicted each other so I don't know how you got there cav
  :-\ seriously...

Oh I'm just reporting on the facts... Not fancying my judgments over the councils. The fact is Chalcedon declared Ibas and his letter were orthodox... Constantinople said otherwise. We know for a fact that at Chalcedon Ibas had been declared orthodox even after his letter had been read as he withdrew his insults against St. Cyril, and most importantly that the letter could be interpreted in an orthodox sense.no matter what surrounded the issue, this was the final position of the council to have him lay in good stead with the church. Secondly at the 5th we know that they did an about face on the issue and condemned the letters and would have fully went against chalcedon by condemning persons had it not been for the protests of Vigilius and the west who steadfastly upheld Chalcedon. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and here lies a contradiction between the 4th and 5th and decisions were overturned. This also proved the RC position that ecumenical councils, when it comes to any judgments of a person, are not infallible. Only judgments on doctrines are.
Nestorius would be happy to know that. Pope St. Cyril and the rest of the Fathers of Ephesus would not, nor would their successors at Chalcedon (where they required Theodoret and Ibas to anathematize Nestorius and his friends before reinstatement), nor Constantinople II.
This Vatican position on ecumenical councils and their judgments on persons, when did that development? I know why-trying to escape Honorius-but I'm curious as to when this solution was dreamt up.
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2014, 02:54:32 AM »
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

I thought Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be infallible in Orthodoxy. How can CII have contradicted Chalcedon?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 02:55:33 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #87 on: December 31, 2014, 03:40:29 AM »
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

I thought Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be infallible in Orthodoxy. How can CII have contradicted Chalcedon?
it didn't. But only the Definitions are infallible, irreformable...or whatever term you like to use.

Ibas never owned up to the letter, and it was referred to as "the letter attributed to Ibas."
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 Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #88 on: December 31, 2014, 03:46:43 AM »
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #89 on: December 31, 2014, 03:48:09 AM »
no, they were charged with heresy before-that is how they got deposed-and they have to abjure the heresy, i.e. Nestorianism, that they were charged with. In the case of Ibas, Constantinople II didn't even find him guilty of the letter attributed to him, which the Council condemned.
But Ibas did write the letter, didn't he? CII just accepted an "orthodox interpretation" of it and let him off with his denunciation of Nestorius.

I thought Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be infallible in Orthodoxy. How can CII have contradicted Chalcedon?
it didn't. But only the Definitions are infallible, irreformable...or whatever term you like to use.

Ibas never owned up to the letter, and it was referred to as "the letter attributed to Ibas."
Oh. Ok.


Which brings up my related question, what does the anathematizing of a person in Orthodoxy or Catholicism actually do? I'm guessing it doesn't mean, "this guy is definitely burning in Hell." I've heard it means that we're not allowed to pray for their soul but I didn't see a source on that.

It formally labels them a heretic but it seems like anathematizing their writings does that job already. I mean, surely it's not a crime to say so if Arius, for example, happened to be right about some issue outside the Deity of Christ. Origen said a lot of good things, after all.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #90 on: December 31, 2014, 03:50:59 AM »
You're sort of arguing two directions there, aren't you? Starting by saying writings and not persons ought to be accursed, then saying Origen's writings were of use to the Fathers (and so his person and not his writings should be accursed?) ...
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #91 on: December 31, 2014, 03:55:37 AM »
You're sort of arguing two directions there, aren't you? Starting by saying writings and not persons ought to be accursed, then saying Origen's writings were of use to the Fathers (and so his person and not his writings should be accursed?) ...
I'm not saying his person should be accursed because I have no idea what that actually means in this context.

Origen wrote some good things and he wrote some heretical things. Intuitively, it seems like anathematizing the man denies that- along with whatever it might be saying about the state of his soul.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #92 on: December 31, 2014, 04:02:14 AM »
Anathematization of a man after his death I'm not sure the meaning of, but anathemitization of a living teacher seems useful or necessary to me. Imposing complete distance between someone and the Church is just a reflection of a truth, sometimes, it seems to me. Now, if we really wanted to spice up the discussion, we could include St. Paul's statement about someone anathema -- that he was turning him over to the Evil One to be tormented in body (my paraphrase) and learn to repent.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #93 on: December 31, 2014, 04:05:57 AM »
Anathematization of a man after his death I'm not sure the meaning of, but anathemitization of a living teacher seems useful or necessary to me. Imposing complete distance between someone and the Church is just a reflection of a truth, sometimes, it seems to me. Now, if we really wanted to spice up the discussion, we could include St. Paul's statement about someone anathema -- that he was turning him over to the Evil One to be tormented in body (my paraphrase) and learn to repent.
Yeah, you're right. That makes sense.

I should have been more clear. It is posthumous anathamatization that I don't get.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline emanresu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #94 on: December 31, 2014, 08:56:13 AM »
I have not gotten a satisfactory answer to the puzzle of how someone is supposed to know if a statement by the Pope is infallible or not. Most Catholics I know have different numbers and different ideas of which statements were and were not infallible.  What good is infallibility if no one knows when you are being infallible?

There are typically two ways in which a pope can teach infallibly, according to Rome:

1) A solemn pronouncement on a matter of Faith and Morals such as the dogma of the Assumption in 1950:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

You'll note that the definition is usually preceded by a lengthy review of the history of the dogma and usually ends with the solemn: "We Define, We Profess, etc..."

2) If a pope issues an encyclical which supports or reinforces a long held belief of the Church, that teaching is usually considered to be infallible. An example of this would probably be Pope Paul VI issuing Humanae Vitae condeming artificial birth control. Prior to this you had the general consensus of the Church condemning the practice as well as a prior encyclical by Pope Pius XI, Castii Connubii, written in 1930 condemning the practice.

So there really isn't any neat list available detailing all infallible teachings. The above should be used as a guideline.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 08:57:05 AM by emanresu »

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #95 on: December 31, 2014, 09:52:00 AM »
Anathematization of a man after his death I'm not sure the meaning of, but anathemitization of a living teacher seems useful or necessary to me. Imposing complete distance between someone and the Church is just a reflection of a truth, sometimes, it seems to me. Now, if we really wanted to spice up the discussion, we could include St. Paul's statement about someone anathema -- that he was turning him over to the Evil One to be tormented in body (my paraphrase) and learn to repent.
Yeah, you're right. That makes sense.

I should have been more clear. It is posthumous anathamatization that I don't get.
It is my understanding that there is no such thing as a posthumous anathamatization of a man, rather, the teachings are anathamatized.
God bless!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #96 on: December 31, 2014, 01:38:08 PM »
The Second Council specifically anathematizes (a long dead) Origen, "as well as" his works. (In the West, the practice was quite common, along with posthumous torture and so on, but I'll admit that's another subject.)
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #97 on: December 31, 2014, 01:40:56 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #98 on: December 31, 2014, 06:55:13 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #99 on: December 31, 2014, 07:00:17 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.

You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #100 on: December 31, 2014, 07:29:02 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.

You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
Huh? Nestorius was only condemned at the Third Council and Eutyches at the Fourth.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #101 on: December 31, 2014, 07:39:28 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.

You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
Huh? Nestorius was only condemned at the Third Council and Eutyches at the Fourth.

Thanks! It's a mis-citation in the OrthodoxWiki.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #102 on: December 31, 2014, 07:42:27 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.

You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).
Huh? Nestorius was only condemned at the Third Council and Eutyches at the Fourth.

Thanks! It's a mis-citation in the OrthodoxWiki.
Ah, ok!
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #103 on: December 31, 2014, 08:06:14 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.

You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).

The Second Council of Constantinople is the Fifth a Ecumenical Council.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #104 on: December 31, 2014, 08:20:39 PM »
Thanks; that's it.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #105 on: December 31, 2014, 08:48:08 PM »
Come to think of it, I may be wrong about that. Here's the quote: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books ..." -- So if any of these chaps were alive (I assume some were), then the late Origen (and any other departed) may have been included in the anathema of persons more as a matter of grammar than of individual intent.
None of those were alive at the time of the 5th Council, or if Nestorius was he was on his death bed.

You're right, I was looking them up and they'd been dead for some time. However, the quote is not from the Fifth but from the Second Council (Eleventh Canon).

The Second Council of Constantinople is the Fifth a Ecumenical Council.
Oh. I thought he meant Second Ecumenical Council, period. As in Constantinople I.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #106 on: December 31, 2014, 08:50:52 PM »
Yeah, no, it's entirely my fault.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #107 on: January 01, 2015, 03:51:26 AM »
Yeah, no, it's entirely my fault.
So do we anathematize you?
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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #108 on: January 01, 2015, 11:49:54 AM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

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 Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #109 on: January 01, 2015, 12:53:10 PM »
Yeah, no, it's entirely my fault.
So do we anathematize you?

Been there, done that.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #110 on: January 02, 2015, 10:15:42 AM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope.
LOL. Can you show us by what authority and what canon how said "formal  heretic" pope would be deposed?
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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #111 on: January 03, 2015, 07:37:25 AM »
Isa read the testimony of the doctors of the church on this issue. Its all theoretical as such a thing hasn't happened. Bit the doctors pretty much agree on the issue
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #112 on: January 03, 2015, 07:51:09 AM »
It might be helpful at this juncture to ask, as silly as it might sound, what it would take for authority in Orthodoxy to completely collapse.

If every Orthodox bishop on the planet were to simultaneously die in a plane crash would the Apostolic Succession continue in the Presbyters? What if every Presbyter died at the same time as the bishops?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2015, 07:51:29 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,365
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Freemason Homo Church Infiltrator
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #113 on: January 03, 2015, 08:23:00 AM »
It might be helpful at this juncture to ask, as silly as it might sound, what it would take for authority in Orthodoxy to completely collapse.

If every Orthodox bishop on the planet were to simultaneously die in a plane crash would the Apostolic Succession continue in the Presbyters? What if every Presbyter died at the same time as the bishops?

That sounds similar to this thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,61702.0.html

The bolded statement is worth asking, but your hypothetical is not.



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 xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #114 on: January 03, 2015, 08:27:38 AM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #115 on: January 03, 2015, 08:28:59 AM »
It might be helpful at this juncture to ask, as silly as it might sound, what it would take for authority in Orthodoxy to completely collapse.

If every Orthodox bishop on the planet were to simultaneously die in a plane crash would the Apostolic Succession continue in the Presbyters? What if every Presbyter died at the same time as the bishops?

lol The One World Government would have to found an assassin's order to get rid of all of the evil Bishops.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline emanresu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #116 on: January 03, 2015, 08:45:30 AM »
Isa read the testimony of the doctors of the church on this issue. Its all theoretical as such a thing hasn't happened. Bit the doctors pretty much agree on the issue

Please quote said "doctors" and try to be specific.

As for it never happening, I'd say that Francis is coming pretty darn close.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #117 on: January 04, 2015, 12:12:00 AM »
Isa read the testimony of the doctors of the church on this issue. Its all theoretical as such a thing hasn't happened. Bit the doctors pretty much agree on the issue
yes, all the Orthodox ones and even quite a few of the Ultramontanist ones testify that a heretical bishop of Old Rome is deposed like any other heretical bishop.

Or should be-quite a few, starting with Pope Benedictus VIII, for instance, had a king with an army propping them up on their throne.
And yet Pope John XXIII (the real one, that is, crowned in ) was not the only one deposed.

Pope Eugene IV, the one at the robber council of Florence, was deposed by the Council of Basel on June 25, 1439, for instance.
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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #118 on: January 04, 2015, 04:37:29 AM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.
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 xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #119 on: January 04, 2015, 04:55:54 AM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #120 on: January 04, 2015, 05:04:42 AM »
Isa read the testimony of the doctors of the church on this issue. Its all theoretical as such a thing hasn't happened. Bit the doctors pretty much agree on the issue

Please quote said "doctors" and try to be specific.

As for it never happening, I'd say that Francis is coming pretty darn close.

How so?

Francis is pretty orthodox in his beliefs even on marriage if you look at his time as archbishop of Buenos Aires. He's just not as good with his words as Pope Benedict was nor as hardcore, I can admit that.

There are numerous catholic theologians who deal with this but I will give three : St Robert Bellarmine, St Alphonsus Liguori  and Francisco De Suarez

Among theologians there are two opinions on the matter that are 98% the same but just differ as to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a decree of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope.

Further Fr. Ballerini added on how the manifest heretic is to be treated as per St Paul :

Quote
“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”.
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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #121 on: January 04, 2015, 05:07:24 AM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.

Because the way religion was brought to Africa was in many cases not forced upon the natives. South Africa was like this by and large. Racism and apartheid was forced upon us but the Christian faith, we were evangelised and the people accepted. We aren't so touchy that we exclude everything that white people brought because of their past actions. Not everything about them and what they brough was seen as bad.

There are many great stories of catholic missionaries and methodist ones too who were exemplary men. Further the Christian churches were openly against apartheid and aided the fight against racism during apartheid. We understood that what Christianity taught was for us and what apartheid and racial segregation taught was against us and Christianity.

The only church that  was  for apartheid was , not surprisingly, the Dutch reformed church. ::)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 05:14:44 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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #122 on: January 04, 2015, 02:13:12 PM »
Among theologians there are two opinions on the matter that are 98% the same but just differ as to when and how a heretical Pope loses his office, but both opinions agree that a decree of guilt must be rendered by the proper authorities, or by the guilty party himself, in order for the Pope to be considered no longer Pope.

Here we go again...

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #123 on: January 04, 2015, 06:56:00 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world.
Because Orthodox Empires never did anything bad ::)
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #124 on: January 04, 2015, 07:03:10 PM »
But Wandile, what is the "proper authority" that can bring a grievance against the Supreme Pontiff? I thought the Pope was supposed to be judged by no man.

I can understand the idea that God would strike him dead. But a sitting heresy-propagating Pope would seem to be an intractable problem given the Vatican idea of Papal Supremacy.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #125 on: January 04, 2015, 07:08:05 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.

Because the way religion was brought to Africa was in many cases not forced upon the natives. South Africa was like this by and large. Racism and apartheid was forced upon us but the Christian faith, we were evangelised and the people accepted. We aren't so touchy that we exclude everything that white people brought because of their past actions. Not everything about them and what they brough was seen as bad.

There are many great stories of catholic missionaries and methodist ones too who were exemplary men. Further the Christian churches were openly against apartheid and aided the fight against racism during apartheid. We understood that what Christianity taught was for us and what apartheid and racial segregation taught was against us and Christianity.

The only church that  was  for apartheid was , not surprisingly, the Dutch reformed church. ::)

Really? You need to read some historical documents from that period.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #126 on: January 04, 2015, 07:10:19 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world.
Because Orthodox Empires never did anything bad ::)

Of course they did. But the Protestant and Catholic world continues to commit those crimes. (This, from my anti-imperialist leftism,) The 10th century is long gone. For the past 8 centuries Catholic and Protestant empires have been committing atrocities in the name of Christ.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 07:10:51 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #127 on: January 04, 2015, 09:14:04 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.

Because the way religion was brought to Africa was in many cases not forced upon the natives. South Africa was like this by and large. Racism and apartheid was forced upon us but the Christian faith, we were evangelised and the people accepted. We aren't so touchy that we exclude everything that white people brought because of their past actions. Not everything about them and what they brough was seen as bad.

There are many great stories of catholic missionaries and methodist ones too who were exemplary men. Further the Christian churches were openly against apartheid and aided the fight against racism during apartheid. We understood that what Christianity taught was for us and what apartheid and racial segregation taught was against us and Christianity.

The only church that  was  for apartheid was , not surprisingly, the Dutch reformed church. ::)

Really? You need to read some historical documents from that period.

Tell me about the history of my own country which I've studied for years on end in school and outside of it ::). Nevermind the fact that I actually live here.

Not everything happened the same way and I'm here telling you now... Most of the time in South Africa specifically and Africa in general it didn't happen the way you think. Study the history of Catholicism in Lesotho for starters and then study the history of segregation in South Africa.

Lastly South Africa wasn't colonised by a catholic nation. It was the English (Anglicans) and the Dutch (Protestants)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 09:24:50 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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #128 on: January 04, 2015, 09:17:53 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world.
Because Orthodox Empires never did anything bad ::)

Of course they did. But the Protestant and Catholic world continues to commit those crimes. (This, from my anti-imperialist leftism,) The 10th century is long gone. For the past 8 centuries Catholic and Protestant empires have been committing atrocities in the name of Christ.

So I must be orthodox because you guys were better bad people?

Secondly of heard of French, German, English and Belgian etc colonies but never have I heard of  "Catholic Church" , "Anglican Church" or even a "Dutch Reformed" colony. Religions didn't colonise people... People colonised people.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 09:21:07 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 xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #129 on: January 04, 2015, 09:27:26 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world.
Because Orthodox Empires never did anything bad ::)

Of course they did. But the Protestant and Catholic world continues to commit those crimes. (This, from my anti-imperialist leftism,) The 10th century is long gone. For the past 8 centuries Catholic and Protestant empires have been committing atrocities in the name of Christ.

So I must be orthodox because you guys were better bad people?

Secondly of heard of French, German, English and Belgian etc colonies but never have I heard of  "Catholic Church" , "Anglican Church" or even a "Dutch Reformed" colony. Religions didn't colonise people... People colonised people.

Religion inspired the colonization. Anyway, I'm Protestant. I just think history matters, we've had this discussion before.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #130 on: January 04, 2015, 09:31:39 PM »
But Wandile, what is the "proper authority" that can bring a grievance against the Supreme Pontiff? I thought the Pope was supposed to be judged by no man.

You are right and the doctors and theologians acknowledge this point. What they are saying is the gospel message that anyone who rejects Christ is judged as by his actions he condemned himself. The authorities are the bishops. They correct the pope who has erred by denying a de fide doctrine. When he refuses correction he has shown himself resolute In denial of the faith and thus he is  already judged as by his actions he condemns himself (Ceases to be a catholic, a christian, a bishop). The bishops or the cardinals announce the heretic to already have been judged.  

Understand that this all relates to formal heresy, not material heresy.

Quote
I can understand the idea that God would strike him dead. But a sitting heresy-propagating Pope would seem to be an intractable problem given the Vatican idea of Papal Supremacy.

Explained above :)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 09:38:06 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: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #131 on: January 04, 2015, 09:33:04 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world.
Because Orthodox Empires never did anything bad ::)

Of course they did. But the Protestant and Catholic world continues to commit those crimes. (This, from my anti-imperialist leftism,) The 10th century is long gone. For the past 8 centuries Catholic and Protestant empires have been committing atrocities in the name of Christ.

So I must be orthodox because you guys were better bad people?

Secondly of heard of French, German, English and Belgian etc colonies but never have I heard of  "Catholic Church" , "Anglican Church" or even a "Dutch Reformed" colony. Religions didn't colonise people... People colonised people.

Religion inspired the colonization. Anyway, I'm Protestant. I just think history matters, we've had this discussion before.

No politics encouraged colonisation. Sometimes dressed up in the name of religion to make it seem more noble but it was politics, plain and simple. That's history.
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 Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #132 on: January 04, 2015, 09:40:21 PM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason.  
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 09:41:34 PM by Ebor »
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #133 on: January 04, 2015, 09:59:24 PM »
If by politics you mean "demonic greed," then I'm on board as well.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #134 on: January 04, 2015, 10:36:34 PM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason. 

They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter. The Protestants didn't do that, to their credit they were just looking for a place to express their religion in peace. At least in the American situation, where the Radical Reformation Churches were not protected by the Treaty of Westphalia.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 10:39:44 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #135 on: January 04, 2015, 10:39:22 PM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason.  

They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter. The Protestants didn't do that, to their credit they were just looking for a place to express their religion in peace.

Africa, one of the portions of the world that suffered the most from colonization, was mostly a Protestant exploit.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #136 on: January 04, 2015, 11:14:10 PM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason.  

They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter. The Protestants didn't do that, to their credit they were just looking for a place to express their religion in peace.

Africa, one of the portions of the world that suffered the most from colonization, was mostly a Protestant exploit.

Really? French is the most spoken colonial language in Africa. Which religion was France historically?
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #137 on: January 04, 2015, 11:21:40 PM »
They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter.
Except in several French African colonies (an example you specifically cite) where clergy were expressly forbidden from ministering to anyone other than the European colonists.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #138 on: January 04, 2015, 11:25:06 PM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason.  

They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter. The Protestants didn't do that, to their credit they were just looking for a place to express their religion in peace.

Africa, one of the portions of the world that suffered the most from colonization, was mostly a Protestant exploit.

Really? French is the most spoken colonial language in Africa. Which religion was France historically?

The question would be how much of Africa was colonized by which nations, as all of Africa, officially, was so divided. The conquest of West Africa was an early project, beginning even before the Reformation; however, in the end about half came under the control of France and have of Britain. A similar fate befell North Africa. The rest of Africa was largely a British project, challenged by Boers (already resident) and then Germans and Italians (in late grabs for power leading up to WWI). The great exception is the Congo, the infamous Belgian enterprise. I suppose now that I think of it, Protestant activity was a slim majority in Africa, and I said "mostly" without basis. Thank you for the criticism.

Missionary activity in Africa was a project very dear to the British middle class.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #139 on: January 05, 2015, 01:24:36 AM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason.  

They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter. The Protestants didn't do that, to their credit they were just looking for a place to express their religion in peace. At least in the American situation, where the Radical Reformation Churches were not protected by the Treaty of Westphalia.
NVM.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 01:31:55 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #140 on: January 05, 2015, 02:03:50 AM »
Understand that this all relates to formal heresy, not material heresy.
A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, if your supreme pontiff denies the divinity of Christ or proclaimed the divinity of the Theotokos, your ecclesiastical community has no means by which to remove him. Plenty of his predecessors have been removed, but that was before Pastor Aeternus and your present code of canon law which enacts it.
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 biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #141 on: January 05, 2015, 02:03:50 AM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason.  

They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter. The Protestants didn't do that, to their credit they were just looking for a place to express their religion in peace.

Africa, one of the portions of the world that suffered the most from colonization, was mostly a Protestant exploit.

Remember, everything is the Pope's fault.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #142 on: January 05, 2015, 02:03:50 AM »
I agree with Wandile.  It was politics and acquiring sources of materials that were useful/wanted such as spices, woods, rubber, metals, cloth and fibers, plants, foodstuffs and so forth as well as land. Locations for getting food and water during long voyages was another reason. 

They certainly dressed it up as a global missionary effort to make the world submit to St. Peter. The Protestants didn't do that, to their credit they were just looking for a place to express their religion in peace. At least in the American situation, where the Radical Reformation Churches were not protected by the Treaty of Westphalia.

You've got to be kidding me.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #143 on: January 07, 2015, 08:03:00 AM »
Understand that this all relates to formal heresy, not material heresy.
A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, if your supreme pontiff denies the divinity of Christ or proclaimed the divinity of the Theotokos, your ecclesiastical community has no means by which to remove him. Plenty of his predecessors have been removed, but that was before Pastor Aeternus and your present code of canon law which enacts it.

Without a difference? You should certainly know thee is a huge difference.

Just told you how we deal with it. The doctors speak .
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #144 on: January 07, 2015, 12:14:24 PM »
Understand that this all relates to formal heresy, not material heresy.
A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, if your supreme pontiff denies the divinity of Christ or proclaimed the divinity of the Theotokos, your ecclesiastical community has no means by which to remove him. Plenty of his predecessors have been removed, but that was before Pastor Aeternus and your present code of canon law which enacts it.

Without a difference? You should certainly know thee is a huge difference.

Just told you how we deal with it. The doctors speak .

Here we go again...

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,684
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #145 on: January 07, 2015, 02:07:33 PM »
Understand that this all relates to formal heresy, not material heresy.
A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, if your supreme pontiff denies the divinity of Christ or proclaimed the divinity of the Theotokos, your ecclesiastical community has no means by which to remove him. Plenty of his predecessors have been removed, but that was before Pastor Aeternus and your present code of canon law which enacts it.

Without a difference? You should certainly know thee is a huge difference.

Just told you how we deal with it. The doctors speak .

Here we go again...

Having fun? :)
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 Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #146 on: January 07, 2015, 02:50:46 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.

Because, regardless of the sins that some Catholics have committed, we believe that the Catholic faith is the true faith.
"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 Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #147 on: January 07, 2015, 02:53:54 PM »
Understand that this all relates to formal heresy, not material heresy.
A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, if your supreme pontiff denies the divinity of Christ or proclaimed the divinity of the Theotokos, your ecclesiastical community has no means by which to remove him. Plenty of his predecessors have been removed, but that was before Pastor Aeternus and your present code of canon law which enacts it.

Without a difference? You should certainly know thee is a huge difference.

Just told you how we deal with it. The doctors speak .

I think people throw around that phrase, "a distinction without a difference," all too readily. It seems like an easy way of ignoring a real difference.
"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 Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #148 on: January 07, 2015, 03:00:24 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.

Because, regardless of the sins that some Catholics have committed, we believe that the Catholic faith is the true faith.

Well, obviously. That's what he's asking about, how you can do so in light of what you know about the fruits of your church.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #149 on: January 07, 2015, 03:02:45 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #150 on: January 07, 2015, 03:09:41 PM »
Just to clarify Wandile

What would happen if a pope, say Francis of Rome, would come out and say that, for example, the the ordination of women to the clergy should begin immediately?


(while im here, of pure curiosity and unrelated to the thread, which of the 11 offical languages do you speak?)


Then he denies a de fide article and thus is a heretic. He will obviously be corrected by his brother bishops and if he refuses such, he will evidently be a manifest formal heretic. Thereby deposing himself as a bon-catholic cannot be a pope. There would be a new conclave to elect a new pope, and then they will probably hold a council or  the new pope will judge the heretical Francis and have him declared a a formal heretic.
That's the theory of many fathers of how a heretical pope will be dealt with. Ofcourse it has to be admitted that this will result in a huge schism.

IsiZulu and English

IsiZulu? So... Western imperialism... didn't do anything for you then?

I guess so. Most black people speak their native language (Zulu,xhosa,sotho,pedi,Venda etc) and then speak English or Afrikaans as a second language.

What I'm getting at is how someone can be a Protestant or a Catholic and know about the crimes that their 17th century imperial agents committed around the world. Especially considering how South Africa was under an apartheid state instituted by the West.

Because, regardless of the sins that some Catholics have committed, we believe that the Catholic faith is the true faith.

Well, obviously. That's what he's asking about, how you can do so in light of what you know about the fruits of your church.
On the flip side, the Catholic Church is the largest charitable institution on the planet, and has produced countless saints. :)
"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 Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #151 on: January 07, 2015, 03:10:07 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.
"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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #152 on: January 07, 2015, 03:11:36 PM »
Understand that this all relates to formal heresy, not material heresy.
A distinction without a difference. Bottom line, if your supreme pontiff denies the divinity of Christ or proclaimed the divinity of the Theotokos, your ecclesiastical community has no means by which to remove him. Plenty of his predecessors have been removed, but that was before Pastor Aeternus and your present code of canon law which enacts it.

Without a difference? You should certainly know thee is a huge difference.

Just told you how we deal with it. The doctors speak .

Here we go again...

Having fun? :)

Not really.  I feel sad. 

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #153 on: January 07, 2015, 03:15:23 PM »


I Googled a dancing cat to make you feel better.
"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 Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #154 on: January 07, 2015, 03:15:54 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2015, 03:17:01 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #155 on: January 07, 2015, 03:17:31 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 
"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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #156 on: January 07, 2015, 03:17:43 PM »


I Googled a dancing cat to make you feel better.

But when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find cats on the internet?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #157 on: January 07, 2015, 03:20:48 PM »


I Googled a dancing cat to make you feel better.

But when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find cats on the internet?

He won't.
"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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #158 on: January 07, 2015, 03:21:55 PM »


I Googled a dancing cat to make you feel better.

But when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find cats on the internet?

He won't.

I disagree.  I think it's more likely he'll find cats on the internet than faith on the earth. 

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #159 on: January 07, 2015, 03:22:20 PM »


I Googled a dancing cat to make you feel better.

But when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find cats on the internet?
No, they will all have been raptured.
God bless!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #160 on: January 07, 2015, 03:24:15 PM »


I Googled a dancing cat to make you feel better.

But when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find cats on the internet?
No, they will all have been raptured.

No post-rapture remnant? Then why I have I been reading this?


My life has been wasted! Wasted I tell you!
"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 TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #161 on: January 07, 2015, 03:25:37 PM »


I Googled a dancing cat to make you feel better.

But when the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find cats on the internet?
No, they will all have been raptured.

No post-rapture remnant? Then why I have I been reading this?


My life has been wasted! Wasted I tell you!

There will be a remnant of dogs who will be saved after the rapture, but the cats are all taken in the twinkling of an eye. They are the true dispassionate ones.
God bless!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #162 on: January 07, 2015, 03:33:46 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #163 on: January 07, 2015, 03:45:01 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one.  

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
And I think the whole world has stood agape at Orthodox coldness and moral cowardice in her past. Which is worse? The church that so often leaves blood and madness in its wake or the church that's too busy snoozing on a pile of state largess to do anything at all?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2015, 03:45:39 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #164 on: January 07, 2015, 03:47:59 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
And I think the whole world has stood agape at Orthodox coldness and moral cowardice in her past. Which is worse? The church that so often leaves blood and madness in it's wake or the church that's too busy snoozing on a pile of state largess to do anything at all?
Really? When did this happen? While they were being plundered by the Latins? Perhaps as they were being sacked, raped and pillaged by the Turks? Or maybe as they were sold into captivity by the Arabs? Or as their priests were sent to the gulags by the Communists?
God bless!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #165 on: January 07, 2015, 03:50:18 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
Again, "non-Catholic-atrocities-are-of-a-higher-quality-than-Catholic-ones."
"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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #166 on: January 07, 2015, 03:52:16 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
And I think the whole world has stood agape at Orthodox coldness and moral cowardice in her past. Which is worse? The church that so often leaves blood and madness in it's wake or the church that's too busy snoozing on a pile of state largess to do anything at all?
Really? When did this happen? While they were being plundered by the Latins? Perhaps as they were being sacked, raped and pillaged by the Turks? Or maybe as they were sold into captivity by the Arabs? Or as their priests were sent to the gulags by the Communists?
Nobody ever said being a Christian is easy and I don't wish to belittle the courage of what martyrs there were. Perhaps I'm being too hard on them, but it seems like the response of the bishops was often less the courage of the early church and more trying to suck up to the oppressors so as to keep their heads.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #167 on: January 07, 2015, 04:54:21 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
And I think the whole world has stood agape at Orthodox coldness and moral cowardice in her past. Which is worse? The church that so often leaves blood and madness in it's wake or the church that's too busy snoozing on a pile of state largess to do anything at all?
Really? When did this happen? While they were being plundered by the Latins? Perhaps as they were being sacked, raped and pillaged by the Turks? Or maybe as they were sold into captivity by the Arabs? Or as their priests were sent to the gulags by the Communists?
Nobody ever said being a Christian is easy and I don't wish to belittle the courage of what martyrs there were. Perhaps I'm being too hard on them, but it seems like the response of the bishops was often less the courage of the early church and more trying to suck up to the oppressors so as to keep their heads.
People are people. Some are good, some are lousy. That goes for bishops too. Before we start comparing recent bishops to bishops of the early Church, it is helpful to remember that there were many Christians and bishops back then who recanted their faith or went into hiding to save their skin as well. The Donatists were a reaction to that phenomenon. The martyrs are our role models, but I'll not judge anyone who falls into sin by giving in to a moment of weakness and recanting his faith. I very well might be the next person who fails to have the strength to stand firm in adversity and I want to be able to ask for forgiveness and charity without the feeling of hypocrisy if I do.
God bless!

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #168 on: January 07, 2015, 04:57:25 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
Again, "non-Catholic-atrocities-are-of-a-higher-quality-than-Catholic-ones."
I don't know if anyone can really discuss the quality of atrocities, but it is hardly a secret that Roman Catholic atrocities are definitely the most high profile. Not saying that it is fair, but it is fact. It seems like every armchair skeptic in the world trots out the Crusades and the Inquisition as proof that Christianity is evil.
God bless!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #169 on: January 07, 2015, 05:01:52 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
Again, "non-Catholic-atrocities-are-of-a-higher-quality-than-Catholic-ones."
I don't know if anyone can really discuss the quality of atrocities, but it is hardly a secret that Roman Catholic atrocities are definitely the most high profile. Not saying that it is fair, but it is fact. It seems like every armchair skeptic in the world trots out the Crusades and the Inquisition as proof that Christianity is evil.
Yes, but have not the Anglicans made martyrs of Catholics? Did not the Orthodox in Constantinople massacre the Latins living there? etc. While every armchair skeptic might find it fashionable to attack the Catholic Church, that doesn't mean that the "by your fruits you will know them" argument doesn't cut against other groups as well.
"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 TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #170 on: January 07, 2015, 05:08:41 PM »
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

That would be a problem for every Church, since each one has its own atrocities.

I think most non-Catholics see a clear picture of Rome as head-and-shoulders above the rest for "atrocities" as well as a special arrogance that impelled them. However, I admit perspectives vary and are subjective and admit that the Catholic Church has gone thru much official soul-searching in recent years. If I were you, I think I would be praying for my church in a very humble fashion (and we Orthodox pray for her too and hope to see her fully restored to grace) -- however, we should always be doing the same for ours too.

Oh, the old, "non-Catholic atrocities are of a higher quality than Catholic ones" argument. Good one. 

Not at all. You're belittling something that it would be hard to belittle without blindness. I've tried to give you a glimpse of the picture -- I'll try again. It's not an exaggerated picture to say the whole world has stood agape at Roman Catholic behavior in her past. You may choose to react to this as you please, but that too the world is watching.
Again, "non-Catholic-atrocities-are-of-a-higher-quality-than-Catholic-ones."
I don't know if anyone can really discuss the quality of atrocities, but it is hardly a secret that Roman Catholic atrocities are definitely the most high profile. Not saying that it is fair, but it is fact. It seems like every armchair skeptic in the world trots out the Crusades and the Inquisition as proof that Christianity is evil.
Yes, but have not the Anglicans made martyrs of Catholics? Did not the Orthodox in Constantinople massacre the Latins living there? etc. While every armchair skeptic might find it fashionable to attack the Catholic Church, that doesn't mean that the "by your fruits you will know them" argument doesn't cut against other groups as well.
I agree that the "by your fruits you will know them" argument ought not be leveled against an entire church. It seems the context is more in reference to an individual as opposed to a group. I think the reason other Christians mention it is due to a frustration that we are all painted with that same brush, just like all Catholics are now painted with the pedophile brush and all American Christians are painted with the John Hagee brush. It isn't fair, but the arguments are realities that we all have to deal with on a daily basis.
God bless!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,715
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #171 on: January 07, 2015, 05:27:46 PM »
...and all American Christians are painted with the John Hagee brush.

Are you telling me they aren't all like that??

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: The Remnant and Deposing a Pope
« Reply #172 on: January 07, 2015, 05:40:58 PM »
...and all American Christians are painted with the John Hagee brush.

Are you telling me they aren't all like that??
We. You are part of that amorphous blob too. Sorry.  :-\
God bless!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • ****