H
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
Track down canon lawyers and ask them. Why ask here?So amusing …
Are there canons or not?
A
ajpirc
Guest
Because this is where you get answers about the Catholic Church.
T
tdgesq
Guest
First, let me say that your posts and approach are highly bizarre. You set forth a series of propositions about what the Catholic Church teaches, although it is clear that you don’t believe the truth of any of those propositions. When I requested that you set forth how a Pope could be deposed, you denied that you were asserting that a Pope could be deposed. You only wanted to know if I or any other Catholic agreed or disagreed with the propositions you set forth. I disagreed with some of them. Now you want to know the basis of my disagreement, even though you also disagree with them!?
The Pope promulgates Canon Law along with assistance of the Curia. The point is that it is a compilation of both the more ancient and modern decrees from popes and councils that set forth how they are to be applied to the juridical regulation of the Church. The Pope didn’t codify them. He set up commissions to codify them. The Pope has final say in their approval. Canon law as codified is not the promulgation of new truths. It is the recitation of old truths in a form that can be applied to the regulation of the Church. So you are technically incorrect. The Pope does not codify canon law, although his final approval of that codification is required.
I am required to give assent to the historical teachings of the ordinary magisterium, whether the Pope has explicitly agreed or not. To say that it is nothing to me what my bishops teach, or that it is taught to me from my own Church that it is nothing, shows a profound ignorance on your part of what my Church teaches.
I agree with you that this is what the Catholic Church teaches on this particular issue. I obviously don’t agree with you because you yourself don’t believe in any of the propositions you set forth.
Why do I have to prove that? I can prove it, but since you’ve provided no authority for what you claim my Church teaches I don’t see the need to prove anything. I realize you don’t like it that I’ve disagreed with your unsupported allegations of what the Catholic Church teaches, but you simply asked whether I and other Catholics agree or disagree. I disagree. If you want to try and demonstrate that I’m incorrect, then go for it.
I decline. Until you can actually produce something that supports your understanding of the teachings of the CC it is a waste of time, and not what you requested anyway.
In any case, canon law makes it clear that such a pope will not lose his power to govern the Church validly, not even by public expressions of heretical doctrine. In the 1917 Code, we find that apostates and heretics incur latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunication (canon 2314 §1), but we need to consider other canons in order to see how excommunication relates to loss of ecclesiastical office.
Canon 2263 states that an excommunicated person, as we would expect, “is forbidden to exercise ecclesiastical offices or duties”—the first among which is, of course, the papacy. However, the next canon (2264) affirms the following: “An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to canon 2261 §3; otherwise it is valid.” (The other canon cited here, 2261 §3, makes an exception to this invalidity when it is a case of an officially excommunicated priest giving absolution to someone in danger of death.)
These last four words—“otherwise it is valid”—are highly significant. Let us assume that this pope, the validity of whose election no one disputes, refused to admit he had fallen into heresy. Since no other earthly person or authority—not even all the rest of the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council—would be competent to pass a condemnatory sentence against this pope or to declare that he has incurred excommunication, it follows from the Church’s law that, if he refuses to resign, all his acts of jurisdiction would remain valid, even though they would be illicit. So while this pope would offend God gravely by exercising his office while under an (undeclared) excommunication, all his official acts still would be juridically valid and binding on the Church’s members. catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp
All you had to do is a simple search on this very forum to see what I and others have told you about the excommunication and deposition of a pope is true. :doh2:
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael
Here is the canon: An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
Blessings,
Marduk
The formulation of our Canons has been a truly collegial act. The promulgation, however, was indeed the Pope’s personal prerogative. The Codes are a general set of Canons, and are thus inter-Church – i.e. has relevance beyond the boundaries of any one particular local Church. I know it is hard for Low Petrine advocates to understand, but on such matters, the Catholic Church follows the Apostolic Canon which states that the consent of the head bishop is required.
Why are you avoiding the issue?.
That’s true for an Ecumenical Council. That’s not true for local Councils.
Who else could call an Ecumenical Council today? Please respond.
I referred to the Canon earlier. Why are you avoiding? In any legislative body, the confirming authority is required to grant his confirmation if the rest of the body makes a unanimous ruling. In such instances, the Pope does not have line-item veto authority.
Do you understand the definition of a latae sententiae excommunication? A few have already given the definition of it in this thread. Why are you avoiding?
Here is the canon: An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
Blessings,
Marduk
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is bizarre.
This states the Pope cannot be excommunicated nor removed from office and you are claiming just the opposite.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ignatios,
Secondly, infallibility has nothing to do with consent. Infallibility is from God and God alone. The Church can’t give it to the Pope, neither can the Pope give it to the Church.
:clapping: You should become an apologist for the CC.
Blessings,
Marduk
First of all, YES. Since the CC is patristic to the core, we adhere to Apostolic Canon 34 which states that on a matter of importance for the whole Church, the consent of the head bishop is necessary.
Secondly, infallibility has nothing to do with consent. Infallibility is from God and God alone. The Church can’t give it to the Pope, neither can the Pope give it to the Church.
Yes, since infallibility is directly from God Himself. The Church can’t grant it to the Pope, and neither can the Pope grant it to the Church.
Where does it say that?
According to your imagination, yes – but it’s only in your imagination.
So your source admits that your claim that the infallibility of the Pope is separate from the infallibility of the Church is just a bunch of baloney. Good job!
:clapping: You should become an apologist for the CC.Yes, the Church was already involved in the formulation of the ex cathedra teaching, so ratification is unnecessary.
Yes, I know that the imaginary exaggerations of EO polemicists is endless.
I don’t know what you are going on about. The very source you offer us (highlighter in red above) proves that the false dichotomy is only in your own imagination.
Really? Can you please quote for us exactly where the 5th anathemized Pope Vigilius. As I recall, in their Decree, they appealed to Pope Vigilius himself in support of their position - and this was BEFORE Pope Vigilius confirmed the Council. Why would a Council appeal to a person they anathemized? Either the Council was being inconsistent, or you don’t know what you’re talking about. I am willing to bet it’s the latter.
So what? They were wrong.
When did this pleading happen? Can you provide a source?
Where do the records from the Ecumenical Councils say that Pope Honorius’ letters were dogmatic? We’ll be waiting for the proof. While you’re at it, can you show us where in the Council records it states that Pope Honorius was actually TEACHING the heresy? We’ll be waiting.
I know. That’s because whenever I’ve responded on this matter all those times in the past, you never have an answer, and ;later on just keep on repeating your fanciful theories as if they can become true if you repeat them enough.somehow we always find ourselves going back to these things
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael,
Blessings,
Marduk
I see that “cannot be removed from office” part, but I don’t see the “cannot be excommunicated part.” Can you please provide the exact place in brother tdgesq’s presentation where he states or implies the latter? Thanks.
Blessings,
Marduk
H
Hesychios
Guest
This doesn’t really say anything. I wonder why you bother.
BTW, Apostolic canon 34/35 refers to the authority of the Metropolitan.
It is an ecumenical council I am referring to.
According to your church, no one else, but that is not historic.
What canon?
This is nonsense, it cannot apply to the Supreme Pontiff with whom all other bishops must be in agreement.
If he continues to hold and exercise the office (which he does, as noted above), he is not excommunicated, he is in communion with everyone who continues to go to church and take communion.
He is the only person who can decide if he is an heretic or an apostate. Regardless of what anyone else thinks about him or his ideas, he cannot be removed and he remains in communion unless or until he decides for himself that he should leave.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This doesn’t really say anything. I wonder why you bother.
BTW, Apostolic canon 34/35 refers to the authority of the Metropolitan.
It is an ecumenical council I am referring to.
As for the local council …
Can. 343 The function of the synod of Bishops is to discuss the matters proposed to it and set forth recommendations. It is not its function to settle matters or to draw up decrees, unless the Roman Pontiff has given it deliberative power in certain cases; in this event, it rests with the Roman Pontiff to ratify the decisions of the synod.
Can. 344 The synod of Bishops is directly under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, whose prerogative it is:
1° to convene the synod, as often as this seems opportune to him, and to designate the place where the meetings are to be held
2° to ratify the election of those who, in accordance with the special law of the synod, are to be elected, and to designate and appoint other members;
3° at a suitable time before the celebration of the synod, to prescribe the outlines of the questions to be discussed, in accordance with the special law;
4° to determine the agenda;
5° to preside over the synod personally or through others;
6° to conclude, transfer, suspend or dissolve the synod.
Can. 347 §1 When the meeting of the synod of Bishops is concluded by the Roman Pontiff, the function entrusted in it to the Bishops and other members ceases.
According to your church, no one else, but that is not historic.
What canon?
This is nonsense, it cannot apply to the Supreme Pontiff with whom all other bishops must be in agreement.
If he continues to hold and exercise the office (which he does, as noted above), he is not excommunicated, he is in communion with everyone who continues to go to church and take communion.
He is the only person who can decide if he is an heretic or an apostate. Regardless of what anyone else thinks about him or his ideas, he cannot be removed and he remains in communion unless or until he decides for himself that he should leave.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael
So your statement is not true for local Councils.
A latae sententiae excommunication (in fact, any type of excommunication), applies to what are called the internal forum and external forum. The internal forum, in short, refers to one’s communion with the Church on a spiritual level- the Church as a whole including the Church in the afterlife, and one’s communion with God. The external forum refers to one’s OBSERVABLE relationship with the Church.
If a Pope becomes a heretic, he is excommunicated latae sententiae in the internal forum - he is separated spiritually from the Church, and there’s no two ways about it.
If his heresy becomes public (i.e., the terms “notorious” or “manifest” are often used to describe this), then the bishops have the responsibility to correct the Pope in his error. If the Pope repents, fine, all goes back to normal. If the Pope does not repent, the bishops can put pressure on him to resign, as has been done a few times in the history of the Church. A Council can issue a decree acknowledging the latae sententiae excommunication, but cannot issue any canonical penalties against the Pope. In such a case the Pope can still issue administrative orders and such, but his most important functions will be gone. He will have lost the authority to confer the Sacraments in the Church (who would accept them from him,anyway?). He will have lost the authority to celebrate the Liturgy in the Church. If he attempts to celebrate Liturgy, he’ll find only chirping crickets in attendance. Certainly, NO ONE will be bound to follow him in his heresy, and NO ONE will be bound to be in communion with him. In such an atmosphere, who can doubt that the Pope will resign very soon?
Blessings,
Marduk
Exactly which parts don’t say anything and why. I’ll assume whatever part you leave out of your response, you agree that those parts indeed are true.
The authority of Metropolitans revolves around local urban areas, not whole nations, so can you please specify what part of the Apostolic Canon causes you to believe it refers to the Metropolitan level of jurisdiction?
So, in lieu of a rational response to my previous question, let’s assume that Apostolic Canon 34/35 refers to the universal level. If so, then you have no cause for complaint against the Catholic canons that require the approval/confirmation of the Pope for an Ecumenical Council.
Those canons do not refer to a local Council. They refer to a universal Synod of bishops. It is different from an Ecumenical Council in that a universal Synod of bishops has as its quorum only REPRESENTATIVE members of each Church, and not all the bishops of the world.
So your statement is not true for local Councils.
A few of the Councils were called by the Emperor at the instigation of the Pope, so the procedure is historic. But secular authorities no longer have such involvement in ecclesiastical affairs. So I ask you again, who else can convene an Ecumenical Council today? Please respond.
I gave you the contents. I was thinking about it as I write this, but IIRC, I believe the canon states that the confirming authority need not give his approval if there is a serious enough reason. I don’t have time to look for the exact Canon number right now. In any case, the Pope has no line-item veto authority on de fide matters.
No bishop is obligated to be in agreement with the Pope on a matter that contradicts Divine Law, so your premise here is false.
It appears there are some things about a latae sententiae excommunication that you may not understand.
A latae sententiae excommunication (in fact, any type of excommunication), applies to what are called the internal forum and external forum. The internal forum, in short, refers to one’s communion with the Church on a spiritual level- the Church as a whole including the Church in the afterlife, and one’s communion with God. The external forum refers to one’s OBSERVABLE relationship with the Church.
If a Pope becomes a heretic, he is excommunicated latae sententiae in the internal forum - he is separated spiritually from the Church, and there’s no two ways about it.
If his heresy becomes public (i.e., the terms “notorious” or “manifest” are often used to describe this), then the bishops have the responsibility to correct the Pope in his error. If the Pope repents, fine, all goes back to normal. If the Pope does not repent, the bishops can put pressure on him to resign, as has been done a few times in the history of the Church. A Council can issue a decree acknowledging the latae sententiae excommunication, but cannot issue any canonical penalties against the Pope. In such a case the Pope can still issue administrative orders and such, but his most important functions will be gone. He will have lost the authority to confer the Sacraments in the Church (who would accept them from him,anyway?). He will have lost the authority to celebrate the Liturgy in the Church. If he attempts to celebrate Liturgy, he’ll find only chirping crickets in attendance. Certainly, NO ONE will be bound to follow him in his heresy, and NO ONE will be bound to be in communion with him. In such an atmosphere, who can doubt that the Pope will resign very soon?
We trust our bishops know heresy from orthodoxy. It’s not like your Church where even the laity can judge bishops.
Seriously? You’re going to go with that? If he publicly renounces faith in Christ or belief in God, you seriously think no one is going to have enough sense to know he is an apostate?
As explained in the previous section, that is a false assumption.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
Indeed.
I
Ignatios
Guest
The Apostolic Canon 34/35 has nothing to do with the Papacy it is about the Metropolitan, especially where it states that the head cannot act without the bishops, where the case in the Pope he can act apart “unhindered” he has full and supreme authority over all and does not need the consent of the church etc…
So in a word you are as always WRONG.
Infallibility is not consent, true, but it has a lot to do with the consent in the matter of the RCC, how? if infallibility is, as you claim that there is no difference and it is the same whether it is the infallibility of the Pope or the infallibility of the church OR the E. Council, then how come the church or the E. Council need the ratification of the pope or how come the church or an E. Council cannot proclaim something infallible apart from the pope as the pope does? why? is there deficiency in the infallibility of the Church OR the E. council so they need the ratification of the Pope? if it is so, then this infallibility that you are claiming to be one or no difference, is not from GOD as you claim, then that would leave us with one thing that this whole infallibility dogma is nothing but a hoax or fabrication.
OOOO why not??? is there differences??? does infallibility varies if it is with the church or with the Pope or with the E.C.??? or is the infallibility some materialistic thing that cannot be passed to someone else??? OHHH one thing I believe that the Pope can grant infallibility to the church if he wishes so or to the E.Council I believe it is called ratification. so sorry again you are wrong, I figured maybe you gotten better but it doesn’t seems like it.
I will not keep posting things over for you, sorry, you have to do some work.
Go back and read my last respond for you, it is there from your own church and council that was ratified by the pope.
Nope, all I put forth where from your own RCC therefore your words are directed to your own RCC.
Looool not so fast silly goose, it is only your desperate mind that is showing you those things, I am sure if you cut the sentence into another half you can make out of me a RC …oh wait you already tried looooooool.So your source admits that your claim that the infallibility of the Pope is separate from the infallibility of the Church is just a bunch of baloney. Good job!
You left out the part that changes the whole thing and makes you the silly goose loool: here it is within context again:
…•the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
In red is what you left out, Oh, and you make lousy EO apologist and RC as well, sorry but I can’t give lie instead of truth.
Your wrods are immaterial the Canon is, Can you back up your words with a Canon stating that ratification is unnecessary from the Pope.
Again the list is from your own RCC, so your words again are directed to the source of those teachings however I don’t think that the RCC deserves ALL this therefore I will give you the credit for all this endless imaginary exaggerations.
proved you wrong when you posted it out of context.
I think you will do real good in Disney land.
continued…
I
Ignatios
Guest
…
Here is a quick one from your own Cathol.Ency.:
“… Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs…”
, how humorous your responds are…they APPEALED? as if they begged him, if they did, they only did so because they were worried about his name get stricken from the Diptychs.
loooool support of their position??? HOW I ask you? if his position was against theirs, he was siding with the three heretics ( the three chapters that is, just for a reminder) now you are not only a humorous with your responds but also naive. It is abvious now that you have bitten off more than you can chew.
, by now I am sure that you are just throwing words without any grain of knowledge I really don’t know if you are worthy of handling a debate.
continued…
OOO of course
Here is a quick one from your own Cathol.Ency.:
“… Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs…”
As you recall??? or trying to see if you can pull this one through loool…not a chance silly.
, how humorous your responds are…they APPEALED? as if they begged him, if they did, they only did so because they were worried about his name get stricken from the Diptychs.loooool support of their position???
HOW I ask you? if his position was against theirs, he was siding with the three heretics ( the three chapters that is, just for a reminder) now you are not only a humorous with your responds but also naive. It is abvious now that you have bitten off more than you can chew.Very good question, only if you asked yourself this question before replying, and you may add why also would they appeal to a person to back them up against HIMSELF
, by now I am sure that you are just throwing words without any grain of knowledge I really don’t know if you are worthy of handling a debate.looooool as always you lose after it is clear to the erudite that it is you who speaks out of prejudice and not knowledge.
History shows that Vigilius was wrong EVEN he admitted himself that he was wrong, but of course not you, you sound like a guy when he stated that the south did not loose the war and when I told him that General Lee surrendered, he replied so what I didn’t. hahahahaha.
continued…
M
mardukm
Guest
Metropolitans jurisdiction revolves around local urban centers, not whole nations. What part of the Apostolic Canon makes you think it applies to Metropolitans?
Awesome!! So all your rhetoric is a bunch of hogwash by your own admission.
According to your imagination, and only your imagination.
Because the Apostolic Canon 34/35 and the witness of the early Church demands it.
The Pope never proclaims ex cathedra apart from the Church. That is your own imagination running rampant again.
So the Pope is not a member of the Church? So you’re saying everyone must agree EXCEPT the Pope? Oh, brother.
No, it doesn’t. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, and your own quotes prove it. So what your claiming here is coming from your own imagination.
Yes, and our canons state that the approval of the rest of the bishops is also necessary for an ecumenical Council to have authority. So basically, you are just ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches.
In other words, you have no proof.
It’s only in your own imagination and misinterpretations because you like to take little snippets of Catholic teaching and create your own caricature out of those little snippets.
I addressed your other sentence too.
I guess you missed it.Your misinterpretations are immaterial.
No, because it IS necessary, according to the witness of the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. If you want to violate Sacred Tradition, that’s all on you. Besides, as I already noted to you, our Canons state that the approval of the rest of the bishop of the Council are ALSO necessary.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Ignatios
Guest
Continue…
But here is something for the readers to learn if they are interested in some knowledge:
" The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.
Historical Note.
(Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards **wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses **that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. “We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, **and annul by this writing all that has been done by us **or by others for the defense of the three chapters.”
“The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness,** the doctrinal letters of Sergius**, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city** to Cyrus**, who was then bishop of Phasis** and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome**, **as well as the letter **of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.
Here is the anathema.
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!”
If the above is not enough, let me know and trust me I have more.
May GOD Bless, especially you Marduk
You are defending the pleading and have no idea when it happened??? I think by now your answers disqualified you from an erudite debate.
But here is something for the readers to learn if they are interested in some knowledge:
" The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.
Historical Note.
(Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards **wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses **that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. “We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, **and annul by this writing all that has been done by us **or by others for the defense of the three chapters.”
“The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness,** the doctrinal letters of Sergius**, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city** to Cyrus**, who was then bishop of Phasis** and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome**, **as well as the letter **of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.
Here is the anathema.
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!”
Get educated Marduk before you start talking and getting yourself in irreversible course.
If the above is not enough, let me know and trust me I have more.
I know. That’s because whenever I’ve responded on this matter all those times in the past, you never have an answer, and ;later on just keep on repeating your fanciful theories as if they can become true if you repeat them enough.
And yet more hogwash, I bet you cannot back this one up but on the contrary what you will find is exactly the opposite.
May GOD Bless, especially you Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s an anathema? Can you quote a source - ANY source - that claims being stricken from the diptychs is an anathema? Or is this another one of your false exaggerations?…
OOO of course
Here is a quick one from your own Cathol.Ency.:
“… Already in the seventh session of the council Justinian caused the name of Vigilius to be stricken from the diptychs…”
Apparently, you don’t know what the word means. I’ll leave it at that.
Oh yeah. The so-called “anathema” according to the scholar Ignatios.
You obviously haven’t read the entire Acts, but only little snippets to support your caricature of the situation. But we can already expect that from you.loooool support of their position???
Several Western bishops did not accept the decisions of the Fifth - that is why they “excommunicated” Pope Vigilius. Were those particular Western bishops wrong or not? You are running around in circles. Your anti-Catholic prejudice causes you to be blind to your self-contradictions.
I’ll pray for you.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Nothing here that says he “pleaded to be let back into communion.” He admitted his error, that’s all. A prior letter from the Council Fathers to Pope Vigilius pleaded with him to accept their decrees, confessing that he will be their father and head if only he accepts their decrees. That’s what Pope Vigilius did, so he didn’t have to plead to be let back into communion. The mere confirmation of the acts of the Council was sufficient. Your imagination is running rampant. Btw, in your ignorance, you haven’t realized that the issue regarding Pope Vigilius was a disciplinary one, not a doctrinal one. The Fathers of the Fifth Ecum completely understood that Pope Vigilius was orthodox. They only disagreed about the condemnation of persons, but not about teaching. So your attempt to use the circumstances of the Fifth Ecum to prove that a Pope taught heresy is just your ignorance and exaggerated imagination shining through.
Sorry. Where does it say that the Pope taught the Church that the monophysite heresy was a dogma? Because of a private letter? I never knew that dogma could be pronounced through private letters. Again, your exaggerated imagination, not reality, is the only source for your claims.
Btw, you have yet to demonstrate that Pope Vigilius actually TAUGHT the monophysite heresy to the Church at large — oh never mind. We both know you can’t do that, so don’t waste your time.
Yes. So far, nothing you’ve given proves your exaggerated claims. I’m eager to see what other sources you have that causes you to pretend that your views can be supported.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Ignatios
Guest
And this is exactly what the canon speaks about, only if you keep hold your mind back for a moment it will become evident for you, 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.
Nope, it is only your mind keep getting in the way and show things.Awesome!! So all your rhetoric is a bunch of hogwash by your own admission.
Well it seems by now that your mind ceased to go beyond those words, I truly think you’re done.
You are a zillion year away from where the early Church is and the Canon 34/35 is.
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??? can you answer this from the CCC and keep your mind from interfering? I bet you can’t.
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.
All your replies by now are no more than an evidence that you have ran out of a reason.
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.
Nope, I just told you to back to my lasy post and read this time. but since you have nothing to hold on to anymore you are just hanging to an empty words type of a debate.In other words, you have no proof.
OOO man, now you remind me of my son when he was 8 years old, you keep holding on to those empty words, what is it Marduk, do you need time to go and study all this so you can respond like an erudite person , I have no problem if you like to do so, because your way of debating is reaching yet another low level.
Naaa I didn’t but you minimized it and cut off from the context.I addressed your other sentence too.
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.Your misinterpretations are immaterial.
Well Marduk, I have responded to this above, and I said that the focul point here would is would there be an E.C. if the Pope gave it the thumb down despite the approval of all the bishops? can you answer this without interacting with it IOW answer from your CCC IOW go read your CCC and if it is NO then show us where it isay so and if it is YES then the same.
I
Ignatios
Guest
HUH??? loool … what am I debating a child??? 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
Marduk you don’t have to debate if you can’t, your last 3 or 4 replies were nothing in them but child comments.
If I am wrong then by all means refute me if I am wrong, but as always you run away from the focul point and you try to turn the debat to something else. your ignorance is abvious as the sun.
again refute with an erudite responds and not with 8 years old boy answers.
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…"
You are all over the place Marduk your answers now are no more than insincere, uninformed, illiterate…is this your way now of bringing the debate to so you can end it???
well all I can say that I am glad i am not on the same side you on.
- Status