J
- Status
D
dcointin
Guest
“In 1456, on a return passage, Halley’s comet was excommunicated as an agent of the devil by Pope Calixtus III, but it didn’t do any good - the comet has continued to return!” [ibid.]
C
CDB1718
Guest
No, they can’t cut off from the society someone who isn’t in it. It looks like it boils down to whether the pope has jurisdiction over another patriarch or over another patriarch’s subjects.
There’s a lot more at the link. I don’t like that encyclopedia because it is Victorian-minded and Latin-centric, but those lines clarify what I suspected. newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
J
John_of_Patmos
Guest
From the RISU:
Vatican Says Excommunication of “Pidhirtsi Fathers” Final
22.11.2008, [21:49] // UGCC //
Vatican—On 7 October 2008, the highest tribunal of the Catholic Church, the Apostolic Signatura, gave its response to the request of the so-called “Pidhirtsi fathers” to review the legitimacy of the great excommunication penalty imposed on them by the tribunal of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). In its response, which was also made known to Bishop Mykhail (Koltun) of Sokal and Zhovkva of the UGCC, the Apostolic Signatura states: “…Having seen your instances to the Holy Father and the Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal enclosed with your letter, this Apostolic Signatura does not see any reason for it to intervene in this matter.” ugcc.org.ua posted the news on 11 November 2008.
“The Apostolic Signatura thereby stresses that the UGCC tribunals, contrary to what is often stated by the above-mentioned persons, were qualified to consider the respective criminal matters, and the sentences of the great excommunication penalty imposed on them are final,” explained the head of the Collegial Tribunal of the Sokal and Zhovkva Eparchy of the UGCC, Fr. Vitalii Tokar.
According to the UGCC Information Department, a great excommunication means that people punished with it are excluded from the liturgical communion of the whole Catholic Church. Faithful of the Catholic Church cannot participate in any religious services with these persons. The holy sacraments administered by them are not valid.
Source:
SUPPORT of RISU
Pray to st. Josephat for their return to the UGCC.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Cavaradossi,
Now when I speak of automatic excommunication, I am referring to what is known as Minor Excommunication (deprivation of participation in the Sacraments). There is also Major Excommunication which is normatively ferendae sententiae.
As noted, deposition is normatively a ferendae sententiae penalty, and can only be given after a trial. Trials are inherently collegial by nature, so it is misleading to say “the Pope deposes so and so” for it makes it appear that it is a merely unilateral, arbitrary decision of the Pope (but it is not).
Blessings,
Marduk
Yes, every bishop does have the prerogative to excommunicate. But this excommunication is always informed by established divine/ecclesiastical law. A bishop can’t make something up and then excommunicate someone based on that arbitrary reason (not even the Pope can do that, as demonstrated by the incident with Pope St. Victor during the Easter controversy). So I think it is misleading to say that it is the bishop who excommunicates. Excommunication is normatively a latae sententiae penalty. A violation of the law (divine or ecclesiastical) often incurs automatic excommunication in the internal forum with or without the sentence of a bishop. When a bishop makes a proclamation of excommunication, it is actually a CONFIRMATION of the latae sententiae excommunication that has already occurred in the internal forum. Normally, what happens with particularly conspicuous/notorious/public cases is that the person is given a chance to repent, and if he doesn’t, the bishop confirms the excommunication (with other penalties, if appropriate) — but if the person does repent (with appropriate penance), the bishop lifts the excommunication.
Now when I speak of automatic excommunication, I am referring to what is known as Minor Excommunication (deprivation of participation in the Sacraments). There is also Major Excommunication which is normatively ferendae sententiae.
As noted, deposition is normatively a ferendae sententiae penalty, and can only be given after a trial. Trials are inherently collegial by nature, so it is misleading to say “the Pope deposes so and so” for it makes it appear that it is a merely unilateral, arbitrary decision of the Pope (but it is not).
Yes. This is accounted for in Catholic canon law. When the violation of the law is obvious, and the evidence is overwhelming, the appropriate authority (normally, a bishop or head bishop) can pronounce sentence even without recourse to the normal process. But remember that it is always according to the law. No bishop has the prerogative to make something up and arbitrarily penalize someone.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
In theory, I could accept what you say, but it cannot be left unsaid that the deposition of a bishop (much more a patriarch) requires a trial, which is collegial by nature. The sentence might be given with the personal authority of the Pope, but the collegial nature of the decision inherent in the process cannot be doubted or forgotten. It is not a unilateral decision of the Pope.
I’ll accept this - as long as you can balance your understanding with the notion that the Pope himself can be corrected by his brother bishops.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The Pope does not have the authority to remove a Patriarch without just cause. The Pope does not have the authority to use his office as an occasion to sin or to cause scandal. If he does these actions, he is not acting as Pope, and we are not bound to follow him, but rather to correct him (as taught by St. Robert Bellarmine).
The Pope does not have unlimited authority. He is bound by the same rules as any bishop of the Church (actually, *even more so
*).
It is illogical, unbiblical, and unpatristic to claim that the papacy - whose primary divinely-established purpose is to preserve the unity of the Church - has been given the authority by Christ to break that unity. If the Pope is breaking the unity of the Church or tearing it down, he is no longer acting within his authority, but outside it, and we are not bound to follow or support him in such instances. Simple as that.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think we’re basically saying the same thing. By excommunicate, I simply mean breaking communion (preventing concelebration of the clergy), which all bishops are capable of doing.
D
dochawk
Guest
It is a bit difficult EO excommunicate someone with whom you are not in communion in the first place . . .
QUOTE=Cavaradossi;8857629]
Then there goes any hope for union. He had the power to excommunicate (from his Latin church), but not to depose. That power belonged to the synod of the patriarch, or to a general council.
Or the emperor, or the sultan, or Metropolitan John Chrysotum traveling the empire (and want he deposed twice himself?), or . . .
V
Vico
Guest
CCEO
Code:
**Canon 598** – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
**Canon 1436** – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Understood. When most people ask a question like, “Can the pope depose a patriarch?”, though, they’re envisioning a scenario in which he decides to do so unilaterally and without visible provocation.
I agree with Marduk on this one… I don’t think he could do so “without just cause.” His jurisdiction is universal, but not inexhaustibly and justifiably unilateral. Even personal exercises of his supremacy must conform with the collegial structure of the episcopate.
I don’t think “unlimited authority” accurately conveys his supreme authority or even its universal jurisdiction. Plenty of factors “limit” it. Even the absolute fullness of supreme power has limits.
R
runningdude
Guest
Well, I certainly don’t think a pope ever would attempt to depose a Patriarch without just cause, but if done so, I just don’t see what possible appeal there could be to stop him. 
That being said, this would have to be a deliberate decision, not a mere passing fancy. He couldn’t just one day wake up and decide hey I don’t like so an so. He’d have to personally dispense every protection in canon law first, acknowledging but rejecting counsel to cease, and denying any and all appeals.
It would admittedly be a messy process for a pope to legally depose a patriarch for completely arbitrary or illegitimate political reasons. Any pope evil enough want to so would likely resort to illegal means to get his way (bribery, murder, war, etc) - at which point the patriarch would still legitimately hold his seat.
Thus I offer, at the extreme end of things, the theoretical possibility that a pope could arbitrarily depose a patriarch, with the caveat that no pope, good or evil, would ever bother.
That being said, this would have to be a deliberate decision, not a mere passing fancy. He couldn’t just one day wake up and decide hey I don’t like so an so. He’d have to personally dispense every protection in canon law first, acknowledging but rejecting counsel to cease, and denying any and all appeals.
It would admittedly be a messy process for a pope to legally depose a patriarch for completely arbitrary or illegitimate political reasons. Any pope evil enough want to so would likely resort to illegal means to get his way (bribery, murder, war, etc) - at which point the patriarch would still legitimately hold his seat.
Thus I offer, at the extreme end of things, the theoretical possibility that a pope could arbitrarily depose a patriarch, with the caveat that no pope, good or evil, would ever bother.
R
runningdude
Guest
Well, I certainly don’t think a pope ever would attempt to depose a Patriarch without just cause, but if done so, I just don’t see what possible appeal there could be to stop him.
That being said, this would have to be a deliberate decision, not a mere passing fancy. He couldn’t just one day wake up and decide hey I don’t like so an so. He’d have to personally dispense every protection in canon law first, acknowledging but rejecting counsel to cease, and denying any and all appeals.
It would admittedly be a messy process for a pope to legally depose a patriarch for completely arbitrary or illegitimate political reasons. Any pope evil enough want to so would likely resort to illegal means to get his way (bribery, murder, war, etc) - at which point the patriarch would still legitimately hold his seat.
That, or the Roman Curia would conclude the pope was a lunatic and lock him away where he couldn’t do any damage (hmm… maybe there is some weight to the concept of a collegial episcopate after all)!
Thus I offer, at the extreme end of things, the theoretical possibility that a pope could arbitrarily depose a patriarch, with the caveat that no pope would ever bother.
That being said, this would have to be a deliberate decision, not a mere passing fancy. He couldn’t just one day wake up and decide hey I don’t like so an so. He’d have to personally dispense every protection in canon law first, acknowledging but rejecting counsel to cease, and denying any and all appeals.
It would admittedly be a messy process for a pope to legally depose a patriarch for completely arbitrary or illegitimate political reasons. Any pope evil enough want to so would likely resort to illegal means to get his way (bribery, murder, war, etc) - at which point the patriarch would still legitimately hold his seat.
That, or the Roman Curia would conclude the pope was a lunatic and lock him away where he couldn’t do any damage (hmm… maybe there is some weight to the concept of a collegial episcopate after all)!
Thus I offer, at the extreme end of things, the theoretical possibility that a pope could arbitrarily depose a patriarch, with the caveat that no pope would ever bother.
V
Vico
Guest
862 Photius excommunicated by the Pope.Well, I certainly don’t think a pope ever would attempt to depose a Patriarch without just cause, but if done so, I just don’t see what possible appeal there could be to stop him.
That being said, this would have to be a deliberate decision, not a mere passing fancy. He couldn’t just one day wake up and decide hey I don’t like so an so. He’d have to personally dispense every protection in canon law first, acknowledging but rejecting counsel to cease, and denying any and all appeals.
It would admittedly be a messy process for a pope to legally depose a patriarch for completely arbitrary or illegitimate political reasons. Any pope evil enough want to so would likely resort to illegal means to get his way (bribery, murder, war, etc) - at which point the patriarch would still legitimately hold his seat.
That, or the Roman Curia would conclude the pope was a lunatic and lock him away where he couldn’t do any damage (hmm… maybe there is some weight to the concept of a collegial episcopate after all)!
Thus I offer, at the extreme end of things, the theoretical possibility that a pope could arbitrarily depose a patriarch, with the caveat that no pope would ever bother.
867 Pope excommunicated by Photius.
Photius was deposed by the Council at Rome 868.
Photius restored to his See in 879 by Council at Constantinople.
M
Marcarios
Guest
All this talk about the Pope according to the Roman Catholic Church having the ability to confirm Bishops , appoint etc … On the other hand , you had Eastern Roman Emperors who appointed their own Bishops … how does that work? Popes didn’t seem to have a problem with this ???
R
runningdude
Guest
I don’t understand the context…
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think his point is that if the pope had the authority to depose Photius, he would have done so without a council being called. But don’t take my word for it. I certainly am not a mind-reader, that’s just how I understood Vico’s post. Perhaps Vico could come to clarify for us what he meant.
V
Vico
Guest
Oh. I am not taking a personal stance on this issue, but what I mean to point out is that the matter of Photius is a pivotal point in the history of the Church.
In the Orthodox view, Photius was deposed by Pope Nicholas I mainly because emperor Basil I (whom Photius excommunicated for murdering emperor Michael II) was seeking an alliance with both Pope Nicholas I and the western emperor Louis II. We know that Ignatius had not been elected by a synod (he was appointed by Empress Theodora) so his election to the Patriarchate of Constantinople was illegal.
M
mardukm
Guest
Really? How can this be since Photius was deposed for his uncanonical elevation 4 years before Basil murdered Michael III?
What bearing does this have on the issue? I think there were several Patriarchs of Constantinople who were installed by the secular power (and thus had ecclesiastically illegal status) but considered Saints by the EO (e.g. St. Methodius and St. Photius). Wasn’t that the normal course of affairs in the Byzantine Empire? The Emperor installed, and a Synod confirmed?
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dcointin
Guest
The appointment of patriarchs of Constantinople and other bishops by secular authority is one of the chief problems in Orthodox history that has caused immeasurable grief to the Church. Having an independent, non-political system of episcopal election and ordination is absolutely essential for the freedom of the Church from secular authority. I believe that the Orthodox will continue to suffer from abuses because it lacks that independence. The Catholic Church dealt with the encroachment of secular power through the Papcy - what do we (the Orthodox) offer as a reasonable alternative? I frankly don’t see that we’ve offered one.
M
Mickey
Guest
- Status