That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read! If conciliarism is a heresy you’re admitting that for the first 1,000 years of its history the Roman Church and all of its Popes were in heresy as all of them submitted themselves to the Ecumenical Councils.
I don’t suppose there would ever have been a need for it. In the past the Cardinals of the Curia/Pope’s aides probably just controlled access to the Pope and prevented him from causing scandal until his death. The problem is that the public does expect to see the Pope now. Obviously they could say that he had some medical problems, but that could only stand for so long. Perhaps the more pressing concern would be if a Pope ever lapsed into a Vegetative state/coma. The Cardinals could probably take over most of the bureaucratic functions, but there are still things which only the Pope can do/sign off on. In fact if he survived for long enough he might outlast all the Cardinal electors. Does anyone know if they could declare the equivalent of a Coadjutor Pope elected by the College of Cardinals? Or have a conditional election which would be rendered invalid by the incumbent becoming able again?I don’t think anyone can excommunicate the Pope, but I wonder what would happen if the supreme pontiff excommunicated himself laetae sententiae? Granted the chances of this happening are probably 0.00000000000001%, but it makes you go.
It suprises me that there is no way for a pope to be removed if the needs arise. What if a pope goes mad like King George III? There’s no way for the College of Cardinals to convene and declare that the chair is vacant? Shouldn’t there be some defined procedure?
This is untrue, dare I say a lie.
I am afraid that this is a lie. In reality - they DO allow it:
If you look here. It seems that never in its history, until the 1970s would be more accurate. It is mostly the American side though, and it seems to say that not all Orthodox Churches allow it.
So you’re saying conciliarism is just following a council? I think you have an incorrect definition. Try this one: britannica.com/eb/article-9025089/conciliarism
The pope cannot excommunicate himself latae sententiae because this is a penalty imposed by Church law, and the pope is not governed by Church law. However, many theologians have taught that, in theory, a pope might become a manifest heretic and thus relinquish the office of the papacy, thereby placing himself in a position to be penalized by Church law (since he would no longer be pope). I suspect this situation is what you had in mind.I don’t think anyone can excommunicate the Pope, but I wonder what would happen if the supreme pontiff excommunicated himself laetae sententiae? Granted the chances of this happening are probably 0.00000000000001%, but it makes you go
It suprises me that there is no way for a pope to be removed if the needs arise. What if a pope goes mad like King George III? There’s no way for the College of Cardinals to convene and declare that the chair is vacant? Shouldn’t there be some defined procedure?
I am uncomfortable with the first statement above. What this would suggest is that because many individual parish churches and pastors endorse or allow contraception we can say that the Orthodox Church does so. But, just because the zeitgeist here in America is permissive can we really say that this redefines the doctrines of the Orthodox Church itself? I say no.
I must admit ignorance of these things, but I am intrigued by this above. Does that mean that if the Pope publically assisted people in obtaining abortions he would not be separated from the sacramental life of the Church? Wow! Does that mean that we are to believe that he is incapable of such an act? I can’t see how since he is not impeccable. However, if he is able to fall into such a publicly scandalous state, then it would seem that we are to think that he alone is able to commit such horrific sins, including those which cry to heaven, and not be affected by them? How is that possible to accept?
A pope is not bound by the laws of the Church, but he is bound by the laws of God. Abortion is against the law of God. Therefore, a pope who participates in an abortion would be guilty of sin and would be judged and punished by God. However, he would remain pope and would continue to hold all the rights and privileges of the papacy. He would incur no excommunication because excommunication is a penalty imposed by Church law, not by the laws of God. There have been popes who committed murder and adultery. Consider Pope Leo X, who led a publicly sinful life that contributed to the break of Luther from the Church.
Bingo! Even in the solution to the Western Schism, one of the “Popes” called or gave permission for the Council. As I recall two “Popes” were declared as invalid, the third agreed to resign and the new Pope had to confirm the actions and decisions of the Council. Even in the early Councils, of which there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils, the decisions were not binding until the Pope affirmed them either personally or through his legates. My opinion, a Council cannot depose a Pope without his permission to do so.
Yes, actually. Makes sense, though it does scare one to think about. I suppose given the history we should be thankful that in our day, even with all the Church has to contend with, we have been blessed with good men in the office of Pope.
Yeah, shame on you, holden!
Well, it seems scary until you consider that the Church is protected by Our Lord and possesses infallibility and indefectibility. So we really just need to trust that God will take care of his Church. Humans will sin, but God will continue to guide the Church, even though working with humans.
This is one of the key differences between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox though. The Catholic Church can only really be said to be officially teaching something when it is accepted/endorsed by Rome as Church teaching. Until then individual Priests/Bishops can teach something in error, but that does not make it Church teaching.
I think you are measuring the East with the mind of the West. Sure, to us it looks like they lack real certainty of teaching, but they simply transmit their teaching differently than we do. They look to their ancient liturgical formulae for understanding and teaching, as well as catechisms. Lex orandi lex credendi still holds true for them. I doubt that they would ever consider just rewriting the Divine Liturgy from start as we did the Mass. It would be entirely foreign to their faith.
The thing is that none of that is opposed to the Catholic Church.
Good. They speak very well for themselves, as any Catholic should be able to tell.
Should you read my post, it might seem evident to you that I know of the site, have been to it, and have read enough of it to comment. Then again, perhaps it is easier to just click the reply button and type whatever comes to mind.
Have you even read it? The work is satire, designed to expose modernist heresies.
Would you like me to break this down for you, or do you see the satire? The “dictionary” is a mockery of the errors of dissent, not a statement of dissent in itself. Comprendes?
Oh, how clever. I note that you have seen fit to break out your AIM lingo and duck analogies. So very funny, yet ultimately not persuasive. Show me one error you find on the site - and this time actually read the articles. And try not to be so sophisticated next time… lolz u mite mak evry1 luk bad roflol XDXD
It seems as if you are not aware but a Pope can be excommunicated.