… or because it was more practical for the emperor to be the one to do so.
I don’t see any evidence to that. They could have sent a legate to either one, but every time it was the Emperor. Because he is the only one who had universal jurisdiction, albeit a secular one. A bishop summoning another bishop shows that he has authority over the other bishop, and the bishops back then avoided this.
Interesting question! Yeah, I have no idea what the popular attitude would be in that case.
Yeah, we can only speculate.
True. But to raise this fact against the application of Apostolic Canon 34 to the papacy’s universal authority is to posit an entirely false dichotomy.
I have never been given any reason to doubt the assertion commonly made in Catholic apologetics that Matt. 16:18 is a reference is Isaiah 22:22. I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept, so I’ll say no more.
Well, my point is the Church won’t fall on its knees just because there was no Pope for a few weeks. Like I said, this is a normal occurrence with the death of a Pope…
Oh, sure. I don’t mean to disagree with you on that. I’m just genuinely unsure who can depose a Pope. How does that happen? In an ecclesiastically valid sense, that is.
A synod should. There are 23 Catholic Churches. If you synod the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops, or a duly elected representative by their respective synod, then that could be a synodal court.
It’s much clearer in instances where the valid pontiff gave his assent to step down, such as when Constance resolved the Western Schism.
Or when he is forced off his throne.
Of course we can’t know the answer to this question on an historical level. There’s simply not enough data, as we don’t have the writings of Saint Peter’s first few successors.
The lack of evidence is evidence in itself.
With one exception, perhaps: the first epistle of St. Clement I, a first century pope, to the Church at Corinth. As Corinth is clearly *way *outside the Holy See, the response of the papacy’s detractors mostly comes down, in my experience, to “Well, he didn’t order them around as if he had the authority to do so.” But I don’t really understand that reply: telling them that their deposition of their elders is invalid and instructing them to reinstate them seems pretty clear to me…
But in the first century they wrote to everyone and everywhere. St. Paul’s Epistles prove as much.
Technically, any *Catholic *man can be. So yes, a canonically eastern Catholic man could legally be elected pope of Rome.
No doubt. But again the likelihood is subatomic.
Unlikely, yes, but there is nothing preventing that from happening. Further, let’s not forget that the Armenian Patriarch of Cilicia, Grégoire-Pierre Agagianian, was also considered in the 1958 conclave. That is hardly ancient history in Papal terms.
And His Beatitude Lubomyr was “papable” after Blessed John Paul’s death. Until one is elected, all these are just “rumors”.
I’d vote for him if I could
I would too. But the electorate are mostly Roman Catholic Cardinals. Even if you give the election to the laity, we are still outnumbered.
Actually, his experience in a Church and country still suffering from great divides among the Apostolic Churches might give him a rather unique perspective for dealing with the SSPX issue.
A different perspective doesn’t always means better. The struggles in Ukraine may not relate to the problems of the SSPX. But then again, there’s the SSJK, maybe His Beatitude does know how to deal with the SSPX as the UGCC have dealt with their kin.
Do you really think he has never been to a Roman Catholic Mass? Seriously?
A Latin Mass, ie. Tridentine. But unless another bishop has invited him to concelebrate a Mass, he really doesn’t need to be in one.
I said Latin Mass which I meant Tridentine. The SSPX wouldn’t even touch an OF Mass.
