Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[Isaac14]

I do, I was referring to Patriarchate excommunicating Pope. Actually Pope Piux X (I think?) addressed this and said that if Pope indeed is terrible, it is just a test for the Church to withstand it- and that it already withstood many bad enough Popes.

Good to hear. And likewise, I don’t think an Eastern Catholic primate would be out of place in breaking communion to highlight the seriousness of an issue if all other forms of fraternal correction bore no fruit.

It does concern me that this implies the Pope is a “super bishop” for whom there is no ability to correct other than to just wait it out. I believe such a “bad” pope would be a rare occurrence, but having no means to correct that seems dangerous.

 

[ziapueblo]

It does concern me that this implies the Pope is a “super bishop” for whom there is no ability to correct other than to just wait it out.

I agree. If Pope Francis is speaking heresy for example, there is nothing that can be done about it. They could break communion with him but then they would be “outside the Church.”

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Isaac14:

It does concern me that this implies the Pope is a “super bishop” for whom there is no ability to correct other than to just wait it out.

I agree. If Pope Francis is speaking heresy for example, there is nothing that can be done about it. They could break communion with him but then they would be “outside the Church.”

ZP

The holy doctors and saints (St Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez etc) of the church have all pontificated about a heretical pope and what could be done. No one can judge the pope, only God can but a pope can be shown to be judged by God. Remember a heretic cannot be pope as the pope must be catholic and a heretic is not catholic. Thus a heretical pope ipso facto loses his chair. That seems to be the consensus of the doctors and saints of the church.

So if a pope were to say “Jesus is not the Son of God”, the clergy would first fraternally correct him and if he persists in his heresy despite the correction, the church can call an imperfect council to declare the heretical pope to have lost his papacy due to his obstinate heresy and then proceed to elect a new pope.

That’s the general theory but in reality the church would wait him out and judge him after death. The general thing to do to deal with a bad pope is to correct him and ignore his commands that contradict the laws of God. As St Thomas taught based on the episode of St Paul correcting St Peter, subjects are not bound by the commands, decrees and decisions of superiors when those commands, decrees and decisions contradict divine law.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t think an Eastern Catholic primate would be out of place in breaking communion to highlight the seriousness of an issue if all other forms of fraternal correction bore no fruit.

I don’t necessarily have a view that breaking communion will help. Perhaps include more prayers for the Pope? I’m just shooting with a blindfold now. I do hope we won’t get into that situation. If indeed it happens, I hope laity of Latin Church won’t be affected because of Satan attacking Church through Roman Pontiff.

I believe such a “bad” pope would be a rare occurrence, but having no means to correct that seems dangerous

Personally, I agree but my agreement is worth nothing. Wandile has a better point honestly

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

which is why no autocephalous Church is in Communion with Rome,
except Rome…

Melkites are, Maronite Church is…

 

[dochawk]

Ecclesiology should provide good governing system for the Church and foster it’s unity. What else is point of it?

sure–but that’s a far cry from claims of "it makes more sense, so . . . "

 

[Michael16]

I’m disturbed by the idea of a heretical Pope. It’s HIGHLY unlikely; but theoretically possible. My two cents on the subject is this:

I strongly dislike insurrection against legitimate authority. It disturbs the social order and causes a precedent for extraordinary and drastic action and should only be done for a really darn good reason.

For my money, I’d rather just wait it out until the heretical Pope dies. We’ve done that before with the bad Popes we’ve had in our history.

On the other hand, if it would be a greater injustice and sin to acquiesce than to take action and if Saint Thomas’ teaching that all commands and decrees by an authority that contradicts divine law can be legitimately disobeyed; then by all just means the insurrection must take place.

I would think the best course of action would be for the bishops to convene a special council without the heretical Pope and decide the best course of action; including the possibility of his deposition.

If the council decides to unseat him; then a march into the Vatican could be envisioned. Though, you’d have to take into account how the Swiss Guard will stand on the issue and whether or not they have to be overcome in a palace coup.

Even after a successful deposition/coup; then there’s the issue of winning the peace.

In this hypothetical scenario, I’d hope the bishops would already have elected a new Pope before they unseat the heretical Pope. Otherwise, they’d have to hold an election just after a successful deposition.

Meanwhile: How would the laity and clergy react? Would they support the heretical Pope or the bishops? Would there be an uncorking of the bottle within the Church as everything could potentially be up for grabs while the bishops are distracted with unseating the heretical Pope and electing a new Pope?

If this uncorking happens, how will the Church hold it together until after the deposition and then the bishops and the new Pope can restore order?

Meanwhile, what about the outside world? How would they react? If there’s the possibility of splitting and fracturing of the Church; would the secular world or other enemies take advantage of the situation and go for blood? How would the bishops react if world governments and antiCatholic groups and the press made their attacks as they moved against the heretical Pope and worked to restore order within the Church while the Church faced attacks from without?

So many possibilities and I hope to God this will never happen.

It’s a scary thought.

 

[George720]

about a heretical pope and what could be done.

Yes…

No one can judge the pope,

That indeed is the problem…

a pope can be shown to be judged by God.

OK…

So if a pope were to say “Jesus is not the Son of God”,

Indeed!

the church can call an imperfect council to declare the heretical pope to have lost his papacy due to his obstinate heresy and then proceed to elect a new pope.

Popes can be deposed and elected by “imperfect councils”??

That’s the general theory but in reality the church would wait him out and judge him after death. The general thing to do to deal with a bad pope is to correct him and ignore his commands that contradict the laws of God. As St Thomas taught based on the episode of St Paul correcting St Peter, subjects are not bound by the commands, decrees and decisions of superiors when those commands, decrees and decisions contradict divine law.

Well, this latter is what Orthodox have often done with bad Patriarchs -

“They’ve gotta die sometime” is the dictum… So we all hang in there as best we can and pray, and Sister Churches withdraw Communion, and every opportunity is given for him to repent, and we make very sure that we NEVER allow ANY Patriarch to have immediate and authoritarian jurisdiction over other autocephalous Churches…

It is hard to think about, isn’t it?

And yet that is what happened, from the Orthodox point of view, in 1054, which it has not repented from even to this day… We thought it would pass, but it kept on for a thousand years… Universal Papal authoritarian jurisdiction is heretical from the point of view of the Eastern Orthodox Churches Communion…

It is not heretical because maybe the Latin Church was perhaps a little too heavy handed a few times or decades or centuries, and we just need a little assurance you won’t be so mean next time…

It is heretical because it has never been a received feature of our Communion ever, and when it arose we withdrew our Communion… Thinking all the while it would be temporary and soon pass…

But it became a permanent feature of the Latin Church - An ongoing nightmare for us… This view that the Chair of Peter defined the Church and that autocephaly is a lie because Communion with the Latin Church defines Christianity…

It’s a big deal, you see…

geo

 

[ziapueblo]

I would think the best course of action would be for the bishops to convene a special council without the heretical Pope and decide the best course of action; including the possibility of his deposition.

I thought that the Pope is above a council and not even a council can judge a Pope per Vatican I?

“And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.”

First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3; Denz. 1830 (emphasis mine)

ZP

 

[Michael16]

Well, to be honest @ziapueblo:

It’s a purely hypothetical scenario and I even forgot about Pastor Aeternus. I hope no one’s going to come after me for heresy.

So, in all honesty; I’ll probably just go with keeping my head down and waiting until he dies.

But, considering it’s a HIGHLY unlikely probability: I just hope that nightmare never happens.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I thought that the Pope is above a council and not even a council can judge a Pope per Vatican I?

There are two… theories (?) I guess…

1. Even heretical Pope can not be judged.
2. Heretical Pope is itself contradiction, as Pope is Catholic. Hence if Pope becomes heretic he gives up Papacy and See of Rome is now vacant.

in second scenario, Council can be called by Cardinals to determine whether or not Pope is heretical and declare him to have lost his Papacy. In first one, we wait it out. Depends which one you adhere to and there are too many points for each of them, but none being decisive at the moment.

I even forgot about Pastor Aeternus. I hope no one’s going to come after me for heresy.

Hah, no worries! After all, forgetting about something such as in this case hardly counts as sin

It’s a purely hypothetical scenario

I agree. It would be akin to saying “what if all Bishops become heretical?” or “What if someone has all valid Bishops assassinated and therefore Church can not ordain any new clerics?”… both (as well as heretical Pope stuff) comes down to fact we trust Holy Spirit to protect the Church.

 

[ziapueblo]

Heretical Pope is itself contradiction, as Pope is Catholic. Hence if Pope becomes heretic he gives up Papacy and See of Rome is now vacant.

Not according to Bishop Athanasius Schneider:

“Pope Honorius I (625 – 638) was posthumously excommunicated by three Ecumenical Councils (the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870) on the grounds that he supported the heretical doctrine of those who promoted Monotheletism, thereby helping to spread this heresy. In the letter with which Pope Saint Leo II (+ 682 – 683) confirmed the decrees of the Third Council of Constantinople, he declared the anathema on Pope Honorius (“anathematizamus Honorium”), stating that his predecessor “Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.” (Den-zinger-Schönmetzer, n. 563)” (bold emphasis mine) (Bishop Athanasius Schneider: On the Question of a Heretical Pope)

in second scenario, Council can be called by Cardinals to determine whether or not Pope is heretical and declare him to have lost his Papacy.

How would this be done? It would not be ecumenical since bishops “are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.” (New Advent)

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Not according to Bishop Athanasius Schneider

I don’t necessarily agree that is what passage says.

“Honorius, instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, permitted the immaculate faith to be stained by a profane treason.”

This does not accuse Pope Honorius of holding heresy, but of doing nothing to stop it.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider holds 1st theory to be true; Pope can not be judged and heretic remains the Pope. I don’t know where I stand, personally.

How would this be done? It would not be ecumenical since bishops “are convoked from the whole world ( oikoumene ) under the presidency of the pope or his legates , and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.”

I don’t necessarily think it would be Ecumenical Council. It would also be Council of Cardinals (Cardinals being Clergy of Rome, hence Synod of Rome with no Bishop of Rome present…) and without Pope; for this reason, Wandile calls it “imperfect council”.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Will pm you on this too.

 

[dochawk]

I thought that the Pope is above a council and not even a council can judge a Pope per Vatican I?

In these hypotheticals, the pope would not be judged. Rather, the inquiry would be as to whether this person is the Pope.

 

[Isearch]

Yes, we call that interpretation “Vatican II”…

I am asking for the interpretation contemporary of Vatican I itself, not the interpretation decades after (which has the possibility of rationalizing Vatican I to be compatible to Vatican II instead of explaining the decrees of it).

I mean, technically if all Bishops of the East decided to, they could abolish the liturgy too… stuff like this is irrelevant because Church is not a human institution. Papacy does not limit the East, but protects it’s unity. I have not heard of Pope meddling with Eastern Liturgies anyway.

A bishop imposing the changes of all ancient liturgies of all bishops is much more likely to happen than all the bishops unanimously agreeing to the changes of their own liturgies. I mean, the pope had already changed the Roman rite liturgy to the point that it had been unrecognizable to millions of Roman Catholic worldwide. And Vatican I is apparently ok with the pope changing the liturgies of all rites. This is why am asking for the interpretation, contemporary of Vatican I itself, that reassures that this is not possible.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I am asking for the interpretation contemporary of Vatican I itself, not the interpretation decades after

You have to understand that Vatican II was not dogmatical council. It defined nothing new but cleared missunderstandings. Everything it defined has to be viewed in context of historical dogmas and reality as well. Vatican I defined role of the Pope, Vatican II role of Bishops in communion with him. You are asking about Universal Bishop issue- you need to take both councils into context. Otherwise it would be like looking for Sacraments in Council of Nicea and when failing to find them, declaring that Early Church did not recognize them.

Basically, fact Vatican II happened to define this means that definitions of Vatican I were being misinterpreted or weren’t as clear.

 

[George720]

A Council can be called by the Cardinals
to determine whether or not the Pope is heretical
and declare him to have lost his Papacy.

Does this mean that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility specifies that the Pope can become a heretic and is therefore subject to disciplinary measures by the College of Cardinals who can depose him and then appoint a different Pope with Papal Infallibility?

Is there anything officially written on this feature of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

Us wretched Orthodox are pretty much stuck with whom we have appointed, to the bitter end…

@Michael16, @OrbisNonSufficit
Does the Latin Church understand Herself as an autocephalous Church?
Does she also understand the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem to be also autocephalous Churches in the early Church? Does she see the Russian Church as autocephalous?

And if all have a Yes answer, then what does autocephalous mean according to the dogmas or the Doctrines of the Western Latin Church?

geo

 

[steve-b]

DaddyGirl2:

My extended family is Orthodox…and all I can tell you is that they–and those I’ve met in their churches–would never want to be Catholic. Ever.

My late RO aunt was a very devout RO woman. She would probably have anathematized the RO hierarchy if the latter ever proposed union with Rome.

So humanly speaking, there’s no chance of the RO, EO and OO ever uniting with Rome but remember what Al Michaels said in 1980:

"Do you believe in miracles? Yes!"

YES, as well, and it WILL take a miracle.

So we pray and wait

 

[steve-b]

Isearch:

I am asking for the interpretation contemporary of Vatican I itself, not the interpretation decades after

You have to understand that Vatican II was not dogmatical council. It defined nothing new but cleared missunderstandings.

True no dogmas were defined. It was primarily a pastoral council