Are you saying you asked on the Traditional forum instead of the Ask an Apologist forum because you don’t think the answers the CA apologists give can be trusted to be fully competent? “…nice, but…”
Holdencaulfield, please note the words above: “or even the Roman Pontiff, **prior to his promotion or his elevation **as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff”. This papal bull prevents a man from becoming a pope if he is a heretic. It says nothing about a valid pope who falls into heresy **after **his election to the pontificate.
As I pointed out earlier, excommunication involves the person’s right to receive the sacraments and Christian burial. None of this applies to someone already dead and buried. So, someone who is dead and buried can’t be excommunicated. It doesn’t even make sense. It’s like giving medicine to a person who is already dead from the disease.
Yes. Once you’re dead and buried, putting you on trial for murder is kind of besides the point.
Yes. As long as we qualify Eastern with* Catholic*.
Don’t make things up. One of the chief teachings of western theologians is that we can naver comprehend God. I hate straw man arguements.
Nope. I was a member of a Ruthenian Parish for a whole year. I am not anti-eastern. I just oppose the errors of the Eastern Orthodox Chruch.
We cannot know him personally through reason but we can know that he exists through reason. Both Aquinas and Aristotle demonstrated this.
That’s patently false. But please, do elaborate.
Nope. I am a pretty honest guy. But again, feel free to elaborate.
No I don’t. I completely accept the Catholic Concept of theosis. It is completely true. Its the Eastern Orthodox view that I reject that borders on Pantheism. See here:
No. The problem is not that at all. Aquinas is nothing more than a summation of the Fathers. His teachings are those of the ancient Church. Were the Fathers right 100% of the time? No. But Aquinas combines what was true from their teachings into a unified whole. That does not mean he was perfect either. But he did a pretty darn good job. The problem with Eastern Orthodox theology is that it rejects those who teach the truth such Aquinas and Augustine, in favor of neo-platonic thought, the same that is the teachings of the gnostics.
And the East has been under communism for so long, not able to utilize the intellect with regard to revelation, that it no longer knows how to think about theology.
That is nearly as extreme as the statement that it addresses. I don’t think the Holy Father would go so far as that in either direction…and he is one of my favorite theologians.
But they themselves admitt that they do not take a rational approach to theology. There other alternative, then, is an irrational approach which means an approach without meanigful thought.
A pope has the highest spiritual authority in this world, he cannot be removed from his office in any way other then voluntary resignation. Canon law provides that he may *choose *to resign, but it may never be compelled of him. Those who would attempt to do so would not have the authority to do so, and even were a pope forced into exile and an antipope “elected,” the real pope would remain pope until death.
Well, not necessarily! The opposite of a rational theology is not an irrational theology. This would be like saying that the opposite of basing your world-view on your own experience is to base it on your own inexperience!
Now the question becomes: were any of these excommunications valid?
Assuming that the pope has the ability to reverse someone else’s excommunication, then only Formosus’s was “valid.” I think that the question of whether the pope can be deposed is much more difficult. The Church recognizes a few popes who took office while deposed popes were still alive.
I agree. This is a much better question.
And valid and licit does not necessarily mean equal in moral richness. There is doubtless a certain subjective element in such an assertion, but I think I will leave it there.I just dislike the Novus Ordo. I view it as Valid and Licit, however that doesn’t mean I have to love it.
