Tis_Bearself
Patron
I am personally completely uninterested in choosing my bishops. That to me is Protestant.
- Status
V
Vouthon
Guest
Your right about that.
Lay election and investiture of priests and bishops, including the pope, was the norm throughout the first millenium.
And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee:
And [Isaiah 66:6];
A voice of the people from the city, a voice from the temple, the voice of the Lord
Christianity universalized this concept, interpreting it to encompass all humankind rather than just the people of Israel but it was originally Jewish in origin.
In its medieval, latinate formulation it first arose from " an early tradition that the community of Rome had the right to elect the Pope " ( The Vacant See in Early Modern Rome: A Social History of the Papal Interregnum, p.18). See:
The American Spectator
In the first millennium of the Christian era, when popes were chosen by popular acclaim…the people expressed the overwhelming will of the Catholic Church: vox populi, vox Dei (“the voice of the people is the voice of God”).
Thus Pope St. Leo the Great emphatically affirmed that right in 440 A.D. when he declared
Letter x. To the Bishops of the Province of vienne. In the Matter of Hilary, Bishop of Arles .
"The consent of the clergy, the testimony of those held in honour, the approval of the orders and the laity should be required. He who is to govern all, should be elected by all…
When the election of the chief priest is being considered, the one whom the unanimous consent of the clergy and people demands should be preferred. … No one who is unwanted and unasked for should be ordained, lest the city despise or hate a bishop whom they did not choose."
(continued…)
Lay election and investiture of priests and bishops, including the pope, was the norm throughout the first millenium.
The intellectual roots of this widespread adage or proverb vox populi, vox dei in Christian countries goes back to the Old Testament, namely [1 Samuel 8:7]
And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee:
And [Isaiah 66:6];
A voice of the people from the city, a voice from the temple, the voice of the Lord
Christianity universalized this concept, interpreting it to encompass all humankind rather than just the people of Israel but it was originally Jewish in origin.
In its medieval, latinate formulation it first arose from " an early tradition that the community of Rome had the right to elect the Pope " ( The Vacant See in Early Modern Rome: A Social History of the Papal Interregnum, p.18). See:
The American Spectator
In the first millennium of the Christian era, when popes were chosen by popular acclaim…the people expressed the overwhelming will of the Catholic Church: vox populi, vox Dei (“the voice of the people is the voice of God”).
Thus Pope St. Leo the Great emphatically affirmed that right in 440 A.D. when he declared
Letter x. To the Bishops of the Province of vienne. In the Matter of Hilary, Bishop of Arles .
"The consent of the clergy, the testimony of those held in honour, the approval of the orders and the laity should be required. He who is to govern all, should be elected by all…
When the election of the chief priest is being considered, the one whom the unanimous consent of the clergy and people demands should be preferred. … No one who is unwanted and unasked for should be ordained, lest the city despise or hate a bishop whom they did not choose."
(continued…)
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
Another paradigmatic example is the 991 A.D. letter of the bishops of Reims (quoted in Raiding Saint Peter p.26 by Joelle Rollo-Koster), which stated that they had named a bishop at the behest of the crowd’s " clamour ", listening in the latter instance because the scriptures read that " the voice of the people is the voice of God " while the Holy Canons state that the episcopal election reflects the wishes and desires of both the clergy and the people, with the aforementioned scholar opining that:
" the texts imply a general involvement of the population, regardless of social hierarchy, and it is the openness of the process that offered consensus - hence divine intervention. When reading these early Christian hagiographic texts, it is not implausible to infer that divine intervention emanated from democratic consensus - in the modern sense. The early medieval church was willing to antagonize ‘Caesar’ and open itself to the ‘masses’ for the sake of its independence "(ibid. p.27 )
As noted by the above historian, there was certainly an element of cynical calculation in the early church’s rhetoric of egalitarian populism during the first millennium but it still, nonetheless, provided theological sanction for this idea in both theory and in practice until 1052 (when the papacy restricted papal electors to an elite college of cardinals), than it otherwise would have enjoyed.
And by jove, has this idea proved to have a long-shelf life in the political history of the West, once it had outlived its usefulness for the Catholic Church!
Accordingly, this is one of the areas where change could doctrinally happen to resurrect an earlier practice, as happened at Vatican II with the return of the permanent diaconate (but it would be pretty major and jarring for most Catholics).
In a sense, this was proto-ecclesiastical-democracy in the church - with the catch that once elected/invested, the laity had no right to depose canonically appointed priests or bishops.
This, therefore, is totally distinct from the issue of deposing a canonically elected pope (conciliarism, itself restricted to bishops acting through an ecumenical council and never exercised by the laity).
" the texts imply a general involvement of the population, regardless of social hierarchy, and it is the openness of the process that offered consensus - hence divine intervention. When reading these early Christian hagiographic texts, it is not implausible to infer that divine intervention emanated from democratic consensus - in the modern sense. The early medieval church was willing to antagonize ‘Caesar’ and open itself to the ‘masses’ for the sake of its independence "(ibid. p.27 )
As noted by the above historian, there was certainly an element of cynical calculation in the early church’s rhetoric of egalitarian populism during the first millennium but it still, nonetheless, provided theological sanction for this idea in both theory and in practice until 1052 (when the papacy restricted papal electors to an elite college of cardinals), than it otherwise would have enjoyed.
And by jove, has this idea proved to have a long-shelf life in the political history of the West, once it had outlived its usefulness for the Catholic Church!
Accordingly, this is one of the areas where change could doctrinally happen to resurrect an earlier practice, as happened at Vatican II with the return of the permanent diaconate (but it would be pretty major and jarring for most Catholics).
In a sense, this was proto-ecclesiastical-democracy in the church - with the catch that once elected/invested, the laity had no right to depose canonically appointed priests or bishops.
This, therefore, is totally distinct from the issue of deposing a canonically elected pope (conciliarism, itself restricted to bishops acting through an ecumenical council and never exercised by the laity).
Last edited:
D
Dhc8_Type
Guest
That’s why we don’t have bishops. We have district presidents, elected by the pastors who will be overseen by the district president.
P
pnewton
Guest
Absolutely not. The current situation is a good example why not. Too many people are easily manipulated by the media and those with a political agenda. Pope Francis has made enemies by fighting against clerical power that was abused. He also has a lot of theological opponents. Allowing for either to have a method of deposing the pope destroys the papacy. People that are promoting this are thinking like Protestants.
I know that the Church is full of luke-warm Catholics. The current situation allows those who are more committed to their politics, their ideologies or their own opinion to promote all sorts of things contrary to Catholic faith - ending celibacy, deposing the Pope, lay democracy.
Speaking of politics, I have noticed some here, very traditional, who disagree with the Pope on the environment, immigration, and several other topics, have be staunch defenders of the office of the Pope. Interesting. People are not categories, to be sure. Situations like this are a good litmus as to one’s priorities.
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
To be fair, deposing the Pope is almost certainly heretical in any circumstance, whereas having some lay involvement in the appointment of priests and bishops isn’t (or else the church was acting in an unorthodox way for the first thousand years and Pope St. Leo the Great was preaching heresy from the throne of St. Peter, which obviously isn’t the case).
I don’t think the two should be equated as examples of “politicking”.
I don’t think the two should be equated as examples of “politicking”.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
I think the Church has had enough experience in the last 2,000 years that it will not go down that path. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not too likely.
J
Joey12
Guest
All that has to happen is for the truth to keep coming out. People should not be afraid of speaking the truth.
Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò has made a statement and others have backed his reputation. All that has to happen is for the truth to be examined and for the Pope to know that all eyes are on him and he must do what is right.
It is easier for someone to stay in a position when things are hidden, but not so easy when things are exposed.
I note here that an Australian Archbishop Philip Wilson was convicted of concealing child sexual abuse and tried to hold onto his position until he could appeal, but there was a weight of public and private pressure for him to resign and pretty soon he did so.
If the pope has done wrong I doubt he will be able to withstand the light shone on his misdeeds. The truth is all that is needed.
Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò has made a statement and others have backed his reputation. All that has to happen is for the truth to be examined and for the Pope to know that all eyes are on him and he must do what is right.
It is easier for someone to stay in a position when things are hidden, but not so easy when things are exposed.
I note here that an Australian Archbishop Philip Wilson was convicted of concealing child sexual abuse and tried to hold onto his position until he could appeal, but there was a weight of public and private pressure for him to resign and pretty soon he did so.
If the pope has done wrong I doubt he will be able to withstand the light shone on his misdeeds. The truth is all that is needed.
M
Mary888
Guest
How can you leave a church you are baptized in? Baptism is never annulled.
What “leaving the church” actually means is - attend or not attend the liturgy, give or not give money to the church.
D
DisorientingSneeze
Guest
I’m glad no such measures exist. I’m happy to keep the Holy Spirit in charge of such things. I also think letting laypeople have a say in these things would put us way out of our depth and carry profound spiritual consequences. The stakes are pretty high in eternity.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I can’t see your religion on your profile (I often have trouble viewing it on the new forum) but I presume you are some kind of a Protestant. I am not interested in being a Protestant or adopting their practices of church governance.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Well, I know people who were baptized in the Catholic Church but raised in other faiths and never practiced at all 
it’s true they are members “on paper” but never active members.
it’s true they are members “on paper” but never active members.
A
angel12
Guest
FYI, this poster didn’t disclose religion on his/her profile.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yeah, I still can’t see the religion in the profile, but I notice about 10 posts down in his recent post lists, there is a post where he says he is German Lutheran.
A
angel12
Guest
My apologies, I edited my post – looked at the wrong profile at first
P
pensmama87
Guest
I’m not sure what it would look like, because I am NOT such an expert, but the more I think about it the more I think the business aspect of administration needs to be less in the hands of the clergy. I’m not saying laypeople can’t be corrupt, but it’s a heck of a lot easier to toss out a board composed of laypeople and clean house than it is corrupt bishops and their cronies.
And without so much focus on that in their day to day, maybe some clergy would be better able to focus on their actual calling - getting their flocks to heaven.
And without so much focus on that in their day to day, maybe some clergy would be better able to focus on their actual calling - getting their flocks to heaven.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
And it is possible for a Pope to dismiss the College of Cardinals if such a thing were about to happen. That makes it less likely for a Pope to be deposed.
Benedict XVI shocked everyone by resigning and five years later, a Vatican diplomat calls for the Pope to resign. The more attempts there are to reform the system, the more procedures will be available for opportunists to take advantage of.
We are better off with a secure Pope than with political fighting over him all the time, with public calls for resignation, heresy trials, etc.
A
angel12
Guest
That’s an option that definitely needs to be explored.
D
dochawk
Guest
Perhaps–but this would increase the urgency of the cardinals who would now have to figure out whether they had been dismissed by the pope or “dismissed” by someone else . . . and with no emperor around anymore to step in . . . it won’t end well in any event . . .
G
Genesis315
Guest
It is part of the divine constitution of the Church that it have a primatial bishop, a visible head. It is also a dogmatic truth that this is accomplished by a perpetual succession bishops in that office. Given these two things, the Church has to be able recognize when it is headless and have the means to restore its head. This is the case, whether the former head died, resigned, or defected from the Church. We take it for granted in the first two cases, but I don’t see why the same means and process wouldn’t apply in the third either. In that case, it is not a matter of a juridical judgment against the person or a deposition happening, but merely a recognition of headlessness (just like the previous Pope’s resignation was not “accepted,” but it still had to be recognized so that the Church could proceed to elect another).
It also follows that there must be divine assistance involved in this recognition, since if the Church could fail to recognize her headlessness, she could proceed as headless in perpetuity (and even possibly submit to the teaching and governance of someone other than her head), which is impossible given the above and the other divine promises made to the Church regarding her indefectibility and infallibility. .
It also follows that there must be divine assistance involved in this recognition, since if the Church could fail to recognize her headlessness, she could proceed as headless in perpetuity (and even possibly submit to the teaching and governance of someone other than her head), which is impossible given the above and the other divine promises made to the Church regarding her indefectibility and infallibility. .
- Status