Can the Pope be excommunicated?

[tdgesq]

This is bizarre.

This states the Pope cannot be excommunicated nor removed from office and you are claiming just the opposite.

On the contrary, it explains that he can be excommunicated by acts of heresy. While he has separated himself from the Church by such acts, he cannot be removed from office unless he consents to it. His acts as Pope would still be valid, although they would be illicit. He would be sinning against God and the Church by his actions, including his refusal to remove himself.

You equate excommunication with being deposed from office. They are not the same thing in RCC theology. Your confusion on this is understandable since the Cyprianic view that your Church holds would compel the conclusion that a heretic could not act validly. There would still be difficulties though. Someone or some authoritative body would still have to be able to depose the bishop who has fallen into heresy.

Consider this purely hypothetical situation. The Patriarch of Constantinople has succumbed to to heresy (God forbid). As I understand your theology, he would be acting illicitly (sinning against the Church with every act ecclesiastical control) and he would be acting invalidly (none of his actions would be an effective act on behalf of the Church, including administration of the sacraments). Now the question is: who can remove him from office? Even though the Patriarch does not claim the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome, how can he be removed? Can a council of the ROC remove him? Can a pan-Orthodox council called by someone other than the Patriarch remove him? If so, who must attend? Who has the authority to call the council?

These are not just questions that effect the bishop of Rome. The answer still remains that the Pope may be excommunicated by his own actions, but he can’t be deposed unless he removes himself from office.

 

[dvdjs]

Because this is where you get answers about the Catholic Church.

Answers? The question is hypothetical; the respondents may give conjectures, but no one has actual experience on the matter. If you want answers grounded in canon law, not conjectures, you really should consult experts in canon law. I cannot predict that you will get a consensus.

What you get here is some discussion of ecclesiology that contrasts the lived experience and faith of the Catholic church on the one hand, with the its usual opponents telling Catholics what just absolutely has to be true on the basis of their ungrounded, proof-text interpretations of selected writings.

The worst part is that many of these arguments are coming from members of the OCA and the AOCAA. One only has to look at the current and very recent experience in these jurisdictions to realize that, notwithstanding relevant canons, there is no clear understanding of what those canons mean. The messy controversies in their own churches prove that they cannot with certainty claim to interpret the canons. Yet they feel comfortable in interpreting writings of the Catholic church. It is more than a little galling to read the cackling of “nonsense” and “bizarre” from people, whose experience should teach them to approach these matters with considerably more circumspection.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brothere dvdjs,

As usual, a well-reasoned statement.

Blessings,
Marduk

Answers? The question is hypothetical; the respondents may give conjectures, but no one has actual experience on the matter. If you want answers grounded in canon law, not conjectures, you really should consult experts in canon law. I cannot predict that you will get a consensus.

What you get here is some discussion of ecclesiology that contrasts the lived experience and faith of the Catholic church on the one hand, with the its usual opponents telling Catholics what just absolutely has to be true on the basis of their ungrounded, proof-text interpretations of selected writings.

The worst part is that many of these arguments are coming from members of the OCA and the AOCAA. One only has to look at the current and very recent experience in these jurisdictions to realize that, notwithstanding relevant canons, there is no clear understanding of what those canons mean. The messy controversies in their own churches prove that they cannot with certainty claim to interpret the canons. Yet they feel comfortable in interpreting writings of the Catholic church. It is more than a little galling to read the cackling of “nonsense” and “bizarre” from people, whose experience should teach them to approach these matters with considerably more circumspection.

 

[mardukm]

since the Pope does not need the rest of the Bishops to act, he can act by himself if he wishes to do so, the Canon says that the head cannot acvt without the bishops. Period what part of this don’t you understand.

So since you cannot respond to my original query, you have to shift the focus of the converstaion. That’s OK. I already addressed your claim here. The consensus of the Church is necessary for the formulation of the Decree. My response in the next section will also clarify the issue more.

Nope, it is only your mind keep getting in the way and show things.

You are greatly confused about what the Apostolic Canon states and what the V1 dogma states. The Apostolic Canon states that consensus is necessary for the sake of UNITY. It does NOT say that consensus is necessary to determine Truth (or infallibility). The V1 dogma affirms exactly that. It states that the infallibility (i.e., its status as Truth) of an ex cathedra statement does not depend on consensus. And you agreed with this when you conceded that infallibility is not about consent. That’s why all your rhetoric is pure hogwash.

No it is your own mind that refuses to admit to the truth, the question is CAN the Pope proclaim ex cathedra apart from the church if he wills it???

No he can’t. See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=561402

Again, you are just misinterpreting and misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

what I am saying is that if the Pope doesn’t agree then whatever it is it can’t be valid but if he agrees and the whole RCC doen’t agree then they become invalid or schismatics per your own RCC Teachings.

That’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church. See the link I gave above.

yes but you are ignoring the focul point here wich is would an E.C. be valid if the Pope gave it the thumb down even if the whole college of Bishops thought otherwise? I bet you can’t respond to this with giving it a spin from your Disney land based mind.

I already responded to this, but you keep ignoring it. As I informed you, our canons state that the approval of the bishops is ALSO necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have authority. Whatever it is you think the CC teaches is all in your mind.

Naaa I didn’t but you minimized it and cut off from the context.

The context doesn’t prove what you claim - that’s the problem. Whether I kept the two statements together or not, they still would not support your fanciful misinterpretations.

your problem is that I didn’t interpret it but I went by what your RCC teaches, no wonder why you have problems with other RCs too.

Nothing you’ve quoted from CC sources violates Apostolic Canon 34/35, as already proven above.

striken from the diptychs is no longer recognized as part of the Church anathema is precisely separation from the Church:
orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html

so am I going to teach you now? or debate you? sheesh

There’s nothing in that link that states that being struck from the diptychs is an anathema. You’re not teaching anything (as if you can) - you’re just presenting your own misinformed prejudices.

Huh??? are you reading about the same council or are those the same bishops that excommunicated the Pope… you say"…Several Western bishops did not accept the decisions of the Fifth - that is why they “excommunicated” Pope Vigilius…"

Yes, you claimed that Western bishops excommunicated the Pope. My response is correct. You should do more reading before pretending you have any sort of “knowledge” that can refute Catholic Truth.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The messy controversies in their own churches…

Do you really want to start talking about “messy controversies?” :nope:

 

[Mickey]

the question is CAN the Pope proclaim ex cathedra apart from the church if he wills it???

Yes.

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Pastor aeternus

 

[marlo]

Mickey, i though you said goodbye already to CA? why did you came back? i always get the feeling you join debates because you want to prove to yourself that you chose the right path and you are convincing yourself through debates in these forums. You are most interested in the Pope’s Infallibility and Marian Dogmas, it seems that your searching is not yet finished.

 

[Mickey]

why did you came back?

Why did I came back? Because I miss you so much!

i always get the feeling you join debates because you want to prove to yourself that you chose the right path

I am quite secure with my decision. Thank you for your concern.

Please direct your personal comments to private messaging. Thank you.

 

[Hesychios]

On the contrary, it explains that he can be excommunicated by acts of heresy. While he has separated himself from the Church by such acts, he cannot be removed from office unless he consents to it. His acts as Pope would still be valid, although they would be illicit. He would be sinning against God and the Church by his actions, including his refusal to remove himself.

You equate excommunication with being deposed from office.

The problem here is that I have been addressing the original question which started this thread.

OP, post #1:

… can a bishop excommunicate the Pope? .

The Pope can override any disciplinary action. So, I don’t think this would work.

I think most Roman Catholics assume that this means “throw the person out of the church”. So the original question might be rephrased to ask “can the Pope be thrown out of the church?”. Would that be a correct way of describing the question, or did you have something else in mind?

Yes, can he be thrown out of the Church?

I have said he cannot be thrown out of the church by an act of the bishops, you seem to agree.

Latae Sententiae, while interesting in itself, does not address this concern because the original question was whether bishops can remove the Pope. You very clearly point out that they cannot.

In fact, even if he were a stark raving heretic and just about everyone knew it, he could not be removed from the church by any formal act. From your response here he would also be able to confect the Eucharist in the Lateran cathedral or any other basilica, cathedral or parish in the world. He could call a council (or close one), name bishops or remove them, erect or suppress dioceses, demand ad limina visits, revise the liturgy and codify or reform the canons of any church.

So let’s not imagine that he would really be ‘out of the church’, he would be the very heart of it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Yes.

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
Pastor aeternus

That statement only refers to the fact that he has a pre-eminence of ordinary power. It doesn’t say anything about HOW he exercises his authority. It’s like saying the President of the United States is the highest singular authority in the U.S., but that doesn’t mean he can unilaterally do things at his mere will and pleasure.

In order to get a full understanding of what Vatican 1 taught, you need to go beyond your cut-and-paste methodology. I have demonstrated many times that the Pope cannot declare ex cathedra apart from the Church. In fact, I gave a link to a thread discussing the matter (among many threads, mind you) in which I and other Catholics gave proof from Magisterial Catholic documents that your presumption is false. Why don’t you visit that thread in the Apologetics forum? I doubt you will, because no one will let you get away with your misrepresentations over there. Here in the ECF, we are more willing to discuss. But in the Apologetics Forum, you might easily get reported for your rampant misrepresentations and get suspended or banned.

Why do polemicists such as yourself take so much glee in constantly taking only little snippets of Catholic teaching to create caricatures of Catholic teaching? There are other EO here in CAF, but they don’t engage in the same polemical tactics. I sense that they are secure enough about being EO that they don’t need to constantly attack or misrepresent the Catholic Faith. If you were truly at peace with your decision, you should be able to face the Truth of Catholic teaching as she teaches it. That you constantly have to misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church seems to indicate that you cannot face the Truth of the matter, and that there just might be some truth to brother Marlo’s statement that you somehow need to constantly justify your separation from the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

But in the Apologetics Forum, you might easily get reported for your rampant misrepresentations and get suspended or banned.

What on earth are you talking about. I am not being uncharitable. It is you who are constantly labeling people as polemicists when something is posted that does not fit into your unique theological meanderings.

Why do polemicists such as yourself…

Case in point.

If you were truly at peace with your decision

Rest assured, I am truly at peace. Now you sound like marlo.

you should be able to face the Truth of Catholic teaching as she teaches it.

Amen. And this is how she truly teaches it. My paste is from a legitimate document. You do not like it and are on the attack now. Here is something else from the document. It is very, very clear:

Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Pastor aeternus

there just might be some truth to brother Marlo’s statement that you somehow need to constantly justify your separation from the Church.

Separation? I am not separated from the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

In fact, even if he were a stark raving heretic and just about everyone knew it, he could not be removed from the church by any formal act. From your response here he would also be able to confect the Eucharist in the Lateran cathedral or any other basilica, cathedral or parish in the world. He could call a council (or close one), name bishops or remove them, erect or suppress dioceses, demand ad limina visits, revise the liturgy and codify or reform the canons of any church.

Yes, he can do all that, but no one is bound to follow him in his heresy, nor is anyone bound to submit to any of his decisions that contradicts the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

As far as the Sacraments, that is not true. It depends on the heresy. Further, as brother tdgesq noted, though his Sacramental acts might be valid (depending on the heresy), they would always be illicit. So, as stated in a previous post, if he attempts to celebrate a Mass, all he’ll get are chirping crickets in attendance. At any rate, no one will or can believe that a Pope, of all people, could have invincible ignorance of the Faith. If he was an apostate, he could not administer any of the Sacraments under normal circumstances (which would be almost always), and could not celebrate Mass at all.

In fact, you would really have the same problem in any apostolic Church. You can have a bishop or head bishop not willing to be excommunicated, and he would just set up his own little chhurch even if he was excommunicated. And there’s nothing your Church can do to prevent that, is there? An excommunication will do squat to someone who is so puffed up in pride that he is not willing to step down from his position. So this whole discussion is purely academic, and doesn’t touch reality anyway. Whether or not a Pope can be deposed does absolutely nothing to weaken the Truth of the Catholic Faith about the Papacy.

So it is just a matter of degree. The fact is, we can only pray that such people are willing to submit to the will of God through His Church. And we trust in God that He will preserve his Church despite such people.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Pastor aeternus

Show us exactly where it states that the Pope can proffer an ex cathedra decree APART FROM THE CHURCH. You have not been able to do so thus far. All you have been able to give us are statements that assert that the Pope is the highest singular authority in the Church. Until you can actually prove what your claims, then all your meanderings are just misrepresentations, and they are thus polemical. Similarly with the issue regarding Faith and Reason in the other thread. You come on here with a gross misrepresentation from Orthodoxinfo, fail to give any documentary substantiation for that misrepresentation, and then go off claiming “that’s what it is,” and this in the face of documentary evidence that was provided directly contradicting the misrepresentations you presented. Your attitude is the polemical spirit at its best, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Show us exactly where it states that the Pope can proffer an ex cathedra decree APART FROM THE CHURCH.

LOL! Are you reading thje same thing as I am?

All you have been able to give us are statements that assert that the Pope is the highest singular authority in the Church.

Highest. Get it?
Most Latins are at peace with these facts.

Your attitude is the polemical spirit at its best

And you are quick to insult when someone dismantles your arguments.

Let us see more proof:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the** full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,** and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Pastor aeternus

 

[mardukm]

LOL! Are you reading thje same thing as I am?

Yes.

Highest. Get it?
Most Latins are at peace with these facts.

I get the “highest” part. What I don’t get is your pretense that “highest” is equivalent to “apart from the Church.”

And you are quick to insult when someone dismantles your arguments.

I gave you the specific reasons why you are being a polemicist. You can’t even address those reasons, and you claim that you’ve dismantled my arguments?

Let us see more proof:

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the** full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,** and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Pastor aeternus

Nope. Nothing here that says that the Pope acts APART FROM THE CHURCH, or can define ex cathedra APART FROM THE CHURCH.

Do you have anymore supposed proofs?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[tdgesq]

I have said he cannot be thrown out of the church by an act of the bishops, you seem to agree.

I do agree.

Latae Sententiae, while interesting in itself, does not address this concern because the original question was whether bishops can remove the Pope. You very clearly point out that they cannot.

I was answering the title of the thread. The answer to that question is that the Pope can be excommunicated. The OP was obviously interested in whether other bishops can depose a pope as well. The answer to that is they cannot depose him.

In fact, even if he were a stark raving heretic and just about everyone knew it, he could not be removed from the church by any formal act. From your response here he would also be able to confect the Eucharist in the Lateran cathedral or any other basilica, cathedral or parish in the world. He could call a council (or close one), name bishops or remove them, erect or suppress dioceses, demand ad limina visits, revise the liturgy and codify or reform the canons of any church

.

This is a hypothetical possibility, although I think divine providence would not allow the Pope to promulgate dogma as revealed truth that is heretical. On the other hand, within your communion you could hypothetically have a private heretic who is a Patriarch conferring invalid orders and episcopal consecration to other bishops. All of his actions, including the calling of a council, would similarly be invalid and without force or effect. No one would even know.

So while these largely speculative scenarios are interesting to discuss and sometimes difficult to answer, they are issues for all apostolic Churches regardless of whether they follow Augustine or Cyprian.

So let’s not imagine that he would really be ‘out of the church’, he would be the very heart of it.

Well, that’s all you are really doing - imagining a set of circumstances that could conceivably exist. If that’s the scenario you want to imagine, that’s fine. He would not be out of the Church and would be exercising his authority validly, but illicitly. He would be spiritually separated from the Church, but he could not be deposed even under these circumstances.

 

[Ignatios]

So since you cannot respond to my original query,

You did not have one. Maybe you never noticed that you can only fabricate things but never have a query except what feeds your logically unsound mind.

… you have to shift the focus of the converstaion.

I believe that others also do notice how you start jumping around when one knock the chair off from under you. Marduk your sad attempts after all this time it became only a humor reading for most RCs, and Orthodox alike. You need to step back and refocus.

That’s OK. I already addressed your claim here. The consensus of the Church is necessary for the formulation of the Decree. My response in the next section will also clarify the issue more.

Marduk stop the strawman set ups attempts, I’ve said it twice so far and your replies were about something that is not the subject matter here let me say it over and over agin perhaps the third time, …“the Pope does not need the rest of the Bishops to act, he can act by himself if he wishes to do so, the Canon says that the head cannot act without the bishops. Period what part of this don’t you understand.”

Here let me be more specific I know that we brought those things to you many times before, however, we do it now so others can learn and benefit but never convince you since your way of thinking is beyond any reason.

The 35th Canon of the Holy Apostles “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit [some mss. read: through the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father through the Lord by the Holy Spirit, even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit].” (cc. VI, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; o. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.).

Interpretation.

…It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, … Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops.

Now off to the RCC doctrine concerning the power of the Pope:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “**For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”**403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

You are greatly confused about what the Apostolic Canon states and what the V1 dogma states. The Apostolic Canon states that consensus is necessary for the sake of UNITY. It does NOT say that consensus is necessary to determine Truth (or infallibility). The V1 dogma affirms exactly that. It states that the infallibility (i.e., its status as Truth) of an ex cathedra statement does not depend on consensus. And you agreed with this when you conceded that infallibility is not about consent. That’s why all your rhetoric is pure hogwash.

Looool how humorous you replies are getting to be, you always try to give everything a spin to make it what it is not and turn around to comply with your fallacious mind. This will not happen.
Here is what I said in post #74:”Infallibility is not consent, true, but it has a lot to do with the consent in the matter of the RCC”
I never said it is not about consent but on the contrary I said IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH CONSENT IN THE MATTER OF THE RCC
So as we see that you tried to play with the words in order to make it what you hope it was.
As for what the A. Canon states and what the Infallibility of the Pope says I have showed this in the above and any one with half brain would be able to understand it and see the differences without any difficulty.

continued …

 

[Ignatios]

No he can’t. See here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=561402

HE can’t? I don’t know what church teaching you are using, but it definitely is not the RCC that it is headed by the Pope of Rome.
And is this link your evidence to back up your RCC teaching??? looool… excuse me but This is hilarious …I gave you the A. Canon along with its interpretation by a experts and then I gave you the literal doctrine of your own church from the ccc and what you give me? A 4 pages discussion from the CAF, as we say in the Middle East their works expose them, may GOD guide them to the true faith.

That’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church. See the link I gave above.

Loooool you mean the link to the 4 pages of discussion between members in the CAF ( with all due respect to all)
You are doing very good job at entertaining us Marduk, now you got my approval not only to go to Disney Land but also to some comical show too.

I already responded to this, but you keep ignoring it. As I informed you, our canons state that the approval of the bishops is ALSO necessary for an Ecumenical Council to have authority. Whatever it is you think the CC teaches is all in your mind.

No. It is not according to your RCC teaching here it is again and again and again hopefully your mind would pick up on it:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

The context doesn’t prove what you claim - that’s the problem. Whether I kept the two statements together or not, they still would not support your fanciful misinterpretations.

Looool your problem here is that I did not interpreted it, I just posted it “as is” it is your mind who keep getting you in those embarrassing situations.

Nothing you’ve quoted from CC sources violates Apostolic Canon 34/35, as already proven above.

OH yesss, the link to a 4 pages of discussion between some members on the CAF, Looool this is getting better than reading a comical book…

There’s nothing in that link that states that being struck from the diptychs is an anathema. You’re not teaching anything (as if you can) - you’re just presenting your own misinformed prejudices.

Okay very well then, here let me try this and I bet even this one wouldn’t convence you since your mind keep getting in the way but let others read and benefit:
Anathema:
“In the acts of the Councils and the further course of the New Testament Church of Christ, the word “anathema” came to mean complete separation from the Church. “The Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes”, “let him be anathema”, “let it be anathema”, means a complete tearing away from the church. While in cases of “separation from the communion of the Church” and other epitimia or penances laid on a person, the person remained a member of the Church, even though his participation in her grace filled life was limited, those given over to anathema were thus completely torn away from her until their repentance. Realizing that she is unable to do anything for their salvation, in view of their stubbornness and hardness of heart, the earthly church lifts them up to the judgement of God.”
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anathema.aspx

Diptychs:
The inscribing of a bishop’s name in the diptychs means that the local church considers itself to be in communion with him, the removal of a bishop’s name would indicate breaking communion with him. The names in the diptychs would be read publicly by the deacon during the Divine Liturgy (Eucharist), and by the priest during the Liturgy of Preparation.
byztex.blogspot.com/2009/06/patriarch-kirill-to-make-diptych-trip.html

Now let this be your homework for the night, go “Study and Search”

Yes, you claimed that Western bishops excommunicated the Pope. My response is correct. You should do more reading before pretending you have any sort of “knowledge” that can refute Catholic Truth.

I Think you got to take break and go do some more study, you are stepping all over yourself

 

[mardukm]

You did not have one. Maybe you never noticed that you can only fabricate things but never have a query except what feeds your logically unsound mind.

Some more avoidance. Ok. Let me repeat my question. A Metropolitan See is centered around local URBAN centers, not whole NATIONS, as the Apostolic Canon states. What part of the Apostolic Canon causes you to pretend that it relates to the Metropolitan See?

“the Pope does not need the rest of the Bishops to act, he can act by himself if he wishes to do so, the Canon says that the head cannot act without the bishops. Period what part of this don’t you understand.”

But you’ve offered no proof that the Catholic Church does not live by this Canon, except for your own biased misinterpretation of the V1 Decree on Infallibility.

The 35th Canon of the Holy Apostles “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit

Yes, like I pointed out, the purpose of the consensus is for the sake of the UNITY of the Church - EXACTLY AS THE CANON STATES (see highlighed portion above). Consensus is NOT for the determination of TRUTH. The Vatican Council you quoted simply states that Truth is not determined by consensus, which you in fact admitted. Do you have anything else to offer besides your misinformed misinterpretations?

Interpretation.

So the best you can do is offer an INTERPRETATION? That’s to be expected - because the Apostolic Canon itself does not support your position. The interpretation you offer necessarily has to replace the words “of every nation” with the words “of every province” in order to justify your position. The Catholic understanding depends on the text itself, not a mere interpretation.

Now off to the RCC doctrine concerning the power of the Pope:
883 “**The college or body of bishops has no authority **unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

Yes. Just like the Apostolic Canon states - the consent of the head bishop is required for all acts that pertain to the entire Church. So, what is your problem with that?

Here is what I said in post #74:”Infallibility is not consent, true, but it has a lot to do with the consent in the matter of the RCC”
I never said it is not about consent but on the contrary I said IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH CONSENT IN THE MATTER OF THE RCC

You are obviously confused. You quoted V1 earlier, accusing it of teaching that infallibility DOES NOT DEPEND ON CONSENSUS. Now, you’re running around in circles - NOW, you claim that it is the CC that makes infallibility “a lot to do with consent in the matter.”
As stated earlier, you should be an apologist for the CC. Oh, never mind, you’re just being typically inconsistent, as all EO polemicists are.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

HE can’t? I don’t know what church teaching you are using, but it definitely is not the RCC that it is headed by the Pope of Rome.
And is this link your evidence to back up your RCC teaching??? looool… excuse me but This is hilarious …I gave you the A. Canon along with its interpretation by a experts and then I gave you the literal doctrine of your own church from the ccc and what you give me?

Yes, you gave the literal doctrine which states that Infallibility does not depend on consensus. You, being typically inconsistent, agreed with that dogma of the Catholic Faith. (Like I suggested earlier, you should be a Catholic apologist) But the Apostolic Canon is NOT talking about consensus for the sake of infallibility; it’s talking about consensus for the sake of UNITY. So you can’t compare the V1 Decree with the Apostolic Canon - they are apples and oranges. But Vatican 1 taught OTHER things that are indeed related and perfectly consistent with the Apostolic Canon, and I quoted those teachings in the link I provided.

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

Indeed, this is the first part of Apostolic Canon 34. Typical of every anti-Catholic, you like to take only little snippets of Catholic sources for the sake of creating an ignorant caricature of the Catholic Church. Naturally, you failed to take heed of the following from our Canons: “The Decrees of an Ecumenical Council do not oblige unless they are approved by the Roman Pontiff AS WELL AS THE FAITHERS OF THE COUNCIL.”

Anathema:

Diptychs:

Your own source states that “separation from communion” is NOT the same thing as an anathema. Your sinful prejudice has made you too blind to recognize even what your own sources tell you.

Pitiful.

Blessings,
Marduk