Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John, it’s not very nice to call me a troll when we’ve been having polite online conversation for months now. Eastern Catholic Churches can’t collectively be “also Eastern Orthodox”, because, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, some of the ECCs are of the “Oriental Orthodox” and “Church of the East” Tradition, and not EO-centric. So NO, I’m NOT saying that at all.

Some ROCOR-MP Commemorate the Patriarch directly. The Indian Orthodox Commemorate the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The Syriac Orthodox in India commemorate their Catholicos as well as the SOC Patriarch. ← This is in EVERY Liturgy. This is the same practice as the Syro-Malankara Catholics - we commemorate the Pope and our Catholicos, as well as our direct bishop in every Holy Qurbono, and any bishops present at the Liturgy.

I never called you a troll. I must have been responding to someone else and not have done a very good job of deleting part of the other post, but I know that I did not call you a troll. I always try to avoid personal insults during these discussions.

In America, at least, to avoid confusion we call Chlcedonians Eastern Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians Oriental Orthodox.

In my original post I specified that what I wrote was according to Greek and Antiochian practice. On minor liturgical matters there are differences among the Eastern Orthodox traditions.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

There are miscoceptions on both sides. Somewhere on this site, I read a critique of Orthodox theology compare to St. Thomas Aquinas. I did not recognize what the Catholic who wrote about us as an accurate description of what we actually believe.
I think that with a little flexibility on both sides we can reconcile a lot of our theological differences. For example, purgatory. Orthodox believe that we continue our spiritual progress after we die. Could that concept be reconciled with purgatory?

Fr. John

May I suggest if you have not already read it, the document ’ Unitatis Redintegratio’. In it, it speaks about the split between East and West and shared beliefs between the two Churches,Orthodox and Catholic. This why I think that union is possible as well as understanding. I also think it might help greatly in discussions between Cahtolic’s and Ortodox on this thread.

 

[Gicutzu]

George Gutiu the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cluj-Gherla rejected the Balamand Statement as a betrayal of the Eastern Catholics who he claimed had liberated the Romanian people from “the darkness of domination by the Orthodox Greco-Bulgarian Church.”

Just to set something straight here: George Gutiu was a Greek Catholic Bishop (there is no RC Diocese of Cluj-Gherla).

This thread is really interesting, especially for someone who still has a hard time deciding between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

n Antiochian and Greek Orthodox practice a Priest only commemorates his own Bishop during the Divine Liturgy. My Bishop commemorates the Patriarch of Antioch.

Understood. I believe the requirement for all Catholic liturgies (not just patriarchal liturgies) is for the sake of identification, not because of papal domination. I have confidence that the requirement will be removed once reunion is achieved. There are Canons that were instituted simply because of the extenuating circumstance of our state of schism from one another, and imo don’t belong in the Canons of a reunited Church.

However, the real issue concerning the Immaculate Conception is not really the conception of The Theotokos but the definition of original or ancetral sin. The West, both Catholic and Protestant teaches the Augustinian doctrine of original sin as inherited guilt. Luther and Calvin taught that we are totally deprived and incapable of doing good before we are justified and Baptized. I am not exactly sure what Catholics believe but think that they believe that we at least inherit guilt and corruption.

The inheritance of guilt (Latin - culpa) is a distinctly Protestant teaching. The Catholic teaching, according to Trent, is that what is inherited is reatus (that is the actual word used by Trent, not culpa). A Latin priest explained it to me this way:
Imagine Bob (who is a father) wrecks John’s car in an accident. The court convicts Bob of guilt (culpa) for the act and orders him to pay John restitution for the car. This legal status of being responsible to pay restitution is the reatus. However, Bob dies before he can fully pay back John. Bob’s son inherits his property/his estate. The court orders that Bob’s son has to finish paying off John for the car. What Bob’s son inherited is not Bob’s guilt/blame (culpa), but rather the legal status of responsibility to pay restitution (reatus).

Unfortunately, English translators often translate reatus as “guilt.” This has led many (both Catholic and "non-"Catholics) to mistakenly imagine that the Catholic Church teaches that humanity has inherited Adam’s guilt (or blame) (culpa) for his sin.

However, the Eastern Orthodox Church which was not influenced by Augustine teaches that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin which is mortality and the corruption that comes with it, but that we are only guilty of our own sins.

This is actually exactly what the Catholic Church teaches as well, though English translators have unintentionally portrayed the matter differently by often translating reatus as “guilt.”

On the matter of St. Augustine, the Oriental Orthodox Church also considers him one of its fathers. Like the Catholic Church, the OOC does not accept everything that St. Augustine taught on this topic. Like Latin and Oriental Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox generally use the language of “debt” and “Justice” very commonly when describing Original Sin – of course, there are those in the OOC who distinguish its teaching on Original Sin from the CC teaching based on the idea that the CC teaches an “inherited guilt,” but that is only a common misconception (as explained above, most likely due to the very common English translation of the Latin reatus as “guilt”).

CONT"d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Thus since we believe that Our Lady died before she the assumption we believe that Mary was born in ancestral sin. Indeed, to our understanding of salvation it is essential that Mary be born in ancestral sin, because Christ assumed ancestral sin when he was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin.

The misunderstanding on “inherited guilt” aside, what you state here captures the actual distinction between the Eastern “ancestral sin” and the Latin “original sin.”
Easterns understand “ancestral sin” primarily in terms of the inheritance of physical death, without formally denying the spiritual consequences;
Latins understand “original sin” primarily in terms of the inheritance of separation from God (i,e, spiritual death), without formally denying the physical consequences. It would be a mistake to think that the two terms are equivalent.

NOTE: From my own perception growing up in the COC, the Oriental Churches, distinct from the Eastern focus on physical death and the Western focus on spiritual death, take into account both the physical and spiritual consequences equally as our inheritance from Adam and Eve. The Oriental Churches Traditionally use the term “original sin” in English translation, though I have read more recent Oriental writers support the use of “ancestral sin.”

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was never touched by “original sin” from the moment of conception, that is merely Latinese for “Mary was never at any moment of her existence separated from God.” Since “original sin” according to the Latin perspective is really a different thing from “ancestral sin” according to the Eastern perspective, one cannot judge “original sin” by imposing on it the Eastern definition of “ancestral sin.” The Latin theological expression of the IC is problematic, but it really is only a matter of terminology.

(I have my own heavy criticisms of the Latin belief of Mary’s immortality, which really clouds the matter, but the idea of Mary’s immortality is really only a theologoumenon that has absolutely no Magisterial backing – especially given the fact that the Apostolic Constitution to the dogma of the Assumption admits Mary’s death several times!)

However, this is only a part of the discussion because the doctrine of the Immaculate conception embodies the principle that God prepared the Mary by His grace to become the Mother of God. On that we agree with our Catholic brothers and sister. We just express the same concept differently. Eastern Orthodox celebrate this with the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos in the Temple on November 21. We believe that Joachim and Anna brought Mary to the Temple when she was a young girl. The High Priest met them and took her into the Holy of Holies and she spent several years in the Temple being prepared by God’s grace to become the Mother of God. Therefore, Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on the principle that God prepared Mary to become the Birthgiver of God by His grace, so our doctrines are not as different as they seem at first glance

.
I very recently learned that Latin theologians Traditionally refer to a “second sanctification” of Mary during the Annunciation. I admittedly never know of this. I always thought Latins generally believe that Mary received ALL Grace at her conception. From an Oriental perspective (which also Traditionally refers to Mary having a “second sanctification” at the Annunciation), this new knowledge helped bring Latin Mariology, imo, closer to Oriental Mariology than I had previously suspected.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

May I suggest if you have not already read it, the document ’ Unitatis Redintegratio’. In it, it speaks about the split between East and West and shared beliefs between the two Churches,Orthodox and Catholic. This why I think that union is possible as well as understanding. I also think it might help greatly in discussions between Cahtolic’s and Ortodox on this thread.

The document is a step in the right direction, especially the statement: To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

However, I do not find this attitude reflected during these discussions, because what is emphasized is the requirement that we recognize the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope. That we cannot do, because we believe that the Pope only had a primacy of honor as first among equals just as the Ecumenical Patriarch today has a primacy of honor as first among equals in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople has no power to demand obedience from the other Patriarchs or autocephalous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, is quite common for the other autocephlous Churches to disagree with Constantinople on various non dogmatic matters.

I take issue with the statement, “the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline.”

That is historically incorrect. The Ecumenical Councils not the Pope “acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline.” Herein lies the basis of our disagreement. We agree that the Pope is the senior Bishop of the Church and has primacy of honor, but disagree with Roman Catholics on what that means and how it is applies to the life of the Church. During the time before the schism every controversy over doctrine was decided by an Ecumenical Council not the Pope. The Pope did not have veto authority over the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, but like every other Bishop of the Church had to obey the Ecumenical Councils. If a Pope disagree with a decision of an council claiming to be Ecumenical, he ask for the calling of another council to settle the dispute. This is what happened when Pope St. Leo I rejected the decisions of the Council of Ephesus of 449. Pope St. Leo I lacked the authority to veto the decisions of what is known to history as the Robber Council, but he like all other Bishops had to appeal to another Council to settle the dispute. The result was the Council of Chalcedon, which rejected the decisions of the Robber Council. Naturally, the Pope was not alone in his rejection of the Robber Council, but was supported by Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. Only Alexandria recognized the Robber Council.
In our Church even a Patriarch must abide by the will of his Holy Synod and can even be overridden by the Holy Synod. It happens all the time. In our case, Patriarch Ignatius IV did not want to grant our Archdicoese autonomous status. Our Metropolitan appealed to the Holy Synod and the Patriarch was forced to back down and accept our autonomous status. We did compromise in that we agreed that although we have the right to elect our local Bishops they have to be consecrated by the Patriarch. The point is that the Patriarch has no authority to make decisions but must yield to the authority of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. If we do not give our own Patriarch the right to veto the acts of the Holy Synod, we cannot give the Pope the right to veto decisions of the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, or the decisions of the Patriarch and Holy Synods of autocephalous Churches. When a new Patriarch of Antioch is elected by the Holy Synod, he sends a letter announcing his election to the Primates of the other autocephalous Church, but neither the Ecumenical Patriarch nor the Primate of any other autocephalous Church has the right to veto the elevation of the new Patriarch. You require that the Pope ratify the election of a new leader of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. That means that he can veto the election of a new Primate of an Eastern Catholic Church by refusing to ratify his election.

Fr.John

 

[Peter_J]

The document is a step in the right direction, especially the statement: To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

**However, I do not find this attitude reflected during these discussions, because what is emphasized is the requirement that we recognize the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope. **

Should we be in full communion while agreeing-to-disagree on doctrine?

 

[malphono]

However, I do not find this attitude reflected during these discussions, because what is emphasized is the requirement that we recognize the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope.

Think about that one, Peter. Dangerous territory? If you ask me (and you didn’t so you can flip me off if you want) it sounds like a sell-out to the ultramontanist victory at Vatican I. (And yes, I know brother mardukm is going to jump down my throat for that, but never mind.)

 

[frjohnmorris]

Should we be in full communion while agreeing-to-disagree on doctrine?

No. According to Orthodox theology full communion means that we agree on all doctrines. We have no provisions for what the Protestants call intercommunion. We only have full communion. We believe that communion is the result of agreement on doctrine, not as the Protestants do, a step towards unity. The best example of this that I can cite is the intercommunion between the Episcopalians and the United Methodists. They had concelebration between the Episcopal Bishop in Jackson, Mississippi and the Methodist Bishop. They used two chalices, one with wine for the Episcopalians and one with grape juice for the Methodists. That is not real communion, but a mockery of the concept of unity.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

The document is a step in the right direction, especially the statement: To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

However, I do not find this attitude reflected during these discussions, because what is emphasized is the requirement that we recognize the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope. That we cannot do, because we believe that the Pope only had a primacy of honor as first among equals just as the Ecumenical Patriarch today has a primacy of honor as first among equals in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople has no power to demand obedience from the other Patriarchs or autocephalous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. In fact, is quite common for the other autocephlous Churches to disagree with Constantinople on various non dogmatic matters.

I take issue with the statement, “the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline.”

That is historically incorrect. The Ecumenical Councils not the Pope “acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline.” Herein lies the basis of our disagreement. We agree that the Pope is the senior Bishop of the Church and has primacy of honor, but disagree with Roman Catholics on what that means and how it is applies to the life of the Church. During the time before the schism every controversy over doctrine was decided by an Ecumenical Council not the Pope. The Pope did not have veto authority over the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, but like every other Bishop of the Church had to obey the Ecumenical Councils. If a Pope disagree with a decision of an council claiming to be Ecumenical, he ask for the calling of another council to settle the dispute. This is what happened when Pope St. Leo I rejected the decisions of the Council of Ephesus of 449. Pope St. Leo I lacked the authority to veto the decisions of what is known to history as the Robber Council, but he like all other Bishops had to appeal to another Council to settle the dispute. The result was the Council of Chalcedon, which rejected the decisions of the Robber Council. Naturally, the Pope was not alone in his rejection of the Robber Council, but was supported by Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. Only Alexandria recognized the Robber Council.
In our Church even a Patriarch must abide by the will of his Holy Synod and can even be overridden by the Holy Synod. It happens all the time. In our case, Patriarch Ignatius IV did not want to grant our Archdicoese autonomous status. Our Metropolitan appealed to the Holy Synod and the Patriarch was forced to back down and accept our autonomous status. We did compromise in that we agreed that although we have the right to elect our local Bishops they have to be consecrated by the Patriarch. The point is that the Patriarch has no authority to make decisions but must yield to the authority of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. If we do not give our own Patriarch the right to veto the acts of the Holy Synod, we cannot give the Pope the right to veto decisions of the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, or the decisions of the Patriarch and Holy Synods of autocephalous Churches. When a new Patriarch of Antioch is elected by the Holy Synod, he sends a letter announcing his election to the Primates of the other autocephalous Church, but neither the Ecumenical Patriarch nor the Primate of any other autocephalous Church has the right to veto the elevation of the new Patriarch. You require that the Pope ratify the election of a new leader of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. That means that he can veto the election of a new Primate of an Eastern Catholic Church by refusing to ratify his election.

Fr.John

I understand your position, but you have to admit that it might be possible for diologue to start somewhere. maybe some things can be agreed on while other things need to be worked out?

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

However, I do not find this attitude reflected during these discussions, because what is emphasized is the requirement that we recognize the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope.

The Absolutist Petrine exaggerations (as expressed by some Latins and the SSPX) should be distinguished from the official High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church.

That we cannot do, because we believe that the Pope only had a primacy of honor as first among equals just as the Ecumenical Patriarch today has a primacy of honor as first among equals in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I understand that this is the common understanding of the EOC today, but it is certainly not the way the Patrarich of Constantinople exercised his primacy among the Eastern Churches in patristic times, nor in the high Middle Ages.

The Patriarch of Constantinople has no power to demand obedience

Not by virtue of potestas (authority by virtue of law), to be sure, but by virtue of auctoritas (authority by virtue of respect and honor), he had that authority in the Eastern Church during patristic times and during the high Middle Ages.

In fact, is quite common for the other autocephlous Churches to disagree with Constantinople on various non dogmatic matters.

True. Even in the high Middle Ages, from what I’ve read, the Russian and Antiochian Churches had much better relations with Rome than Constantinople.

I take issue with the statement, “the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline. That is historically incorrect.”

May I ask the reason? The term “common consent” denotes that the Roman See acted as guide when there was an appeal (hence, “common consent”) to the Roman See, not that it had the authority to unilaterally impose its will on the other Churches.

The Ecumenical Councils not the Pope “acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline.”

Not every matter went to an Ecumenical Council. There are many instances, especially in the matter of more local jurisdictional disputes between bishops and episcopal depositions, when the matter went to Rome or Constantinople, by way of appeal. Can you imagine holding an Ecumenical Council, for every inter-diocesan dispute that occurs?

Herein lies the basis of our disagreement. We agree that the Pope is the senior Bishop of the Church and has primacy of honor, but disagree with Roman Catholics on what that means and how it is applies to the life of the Church. During the time before the schism every controversy over doctrine was decided by an Ecumenical Council not the Pope.

Is not the Pope an inherent member of the Ecumenical Council? I don’t understand the distinction trying to made here. If you meant “the Pope alone,” you will find most Catholics (even Latins) will agree with that pov.

The Pope did not have veto authority over the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils,

Most Catholics (even Latins) would agree with this.

but like every other Bishop of the Church had to obey the Ecumenical Councils.

I understand what you are saying, but the CC would formally disagree with the language you use here. The way you put it makes it seem like the Pope is not a member of the Ecumenical Council. In fact, no act of a Council or Synod is valid without the consent of its head (see Apostolic Canon 34). It is better to say that in matters of doctrine, the Pope must be in agreement with the other orthodox bishops WITHIN the Council.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

If a Pope disagree with a decision of an council claiming to be Ecumenical, he ask for the calling of another council to settle the dispute. This is what happened when Pope St. Leo I rejected the decisions of the Council of Ephesus of 449. Pope St. Leo I lacked the authority to veto the decisions of what is known to history as the Robber Council, but he like all other Bishops had to appeal to another Council to settle the dispute.

I basically agree with this, but not on the premise that an Ecumenical Council is above the Pope.

In our Church even a Patriarch must abide by the will of his Holy Synod and can even be overridden by the Holy Synod.

I find this statement problematic in the same way I find the prior statements problematic. This makes it seem like the Patriarch is not an inherent member of the Holy Synod (in fact, its singularly most important member). Within a Synod, the Patriarch can be convinced to change his mind by his brother bishops. Hence, there will be consensus. That’s what happens. It’s a matter of achieving consensus, not a mater of submission. Let’s look at this from the other end. Suppose a Patriarch proposes something, and the other bishops in the Synod agree. Are you going to say that the Synod submitted to the Patriarch? Is it not rather more correct and appropriate to say that the members of the Synod (the head and other members together) all came to consensus on the matter? Why are people always talking of “X submitting to Y” or “Y submitting to X.” Why can’t people simply say that consensus or agreement was reached among the members of a Synod/Council? Why are people always so interested in making these matters about lording it over others?

If we do not give our own Patriarch the right to veto the acts of the Holy Synod, we cannot give the Pope the right to veto decisions of the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, or the decisions of the Patriarch and Holy Synods of autocephalous Churches.

What makes you suspect this is what “universal jurisdiction” is about? Except on matters of doctrine, what makes you think the Pope of Rome would even be interested about overriding the decisions of Patriarchs and Synods (much less, local bishops)? Can anyone give any examples in the history of the Church wherein the Pope of Rome overrode the decision of a Patriarch/Synod unilaterally? I’ll repeat again the historical fact that at the Council of Florence, concurrent with a claim to “universal jurisdiction” for the Pope of Rome, the Council stated that its acts would have no effect for the Coptic Church unless its Holy Synod approved them. I’ve provided a clear example contradicting the impression you have of “universal jurisdiction.” Can you provide an example from the history of the Church that supports your own understanding of “universal jurisdiction?”

When a new Patriarch of Antioch is elected by the Holy Synod, he sends a letter announcing his election to the Primates of the other autocephalous Church, but neither the Ecumenical Patriarch nor the Primate of any other autocephalous Church has the right to veto the elevation of the new Patriarch. You require that the Pope ratify the election of a new leader of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches. That means that he can veto the election of a new Primate of an Eastern Catholic Church by refusing to ratify his election.

That’s a misunderstanding of the process in the Catholic Church. In fact, a Patriarch is consecrated and enthroned before he requests communion from the Pope of Rome.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

I understand your position, but you have to admit that it might be possible for diologue to start somewhere. maybe some things can be agreed on while other things need to be worked out?

Official dialogue is already taking place. There is a North American Orthodox Catholic Dialogue and an International Orthodox and Catholic Dialogue.
There are also personal dialogues between Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope. The Ecumenical Patriarch attended the installation of Pope Francis. The Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch visited Rome to meet with Pope Francis last month.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

Official dialogue is already taking place. There is a North American Orthodox Catholic Dialogue and an International Orthodox and Catholic Dialogue.
There are also personal dialogues between Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope. The Ecumenical Patriarch attended the installation of Pope Francis. The Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch visited Rome to meet with Pope Francis last month.

Fr. John

I knew that already. I was thinking more along the lines of this forum?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I knew that already. I was thinking more along the lines of this forum?

It not that what we are doing?

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

Can someone tell me exactly what Catholics mean when they refer to the Magisterium?

Brother Tyler gave an excellent and concise answer. I would only add that many Catholics often use “Magisterium” to refer to the PERSONS who hold teaching authority. Technically, the term does not denote the person holding the teaching authority, but rather the teaching authority that is held.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

It not that what we are doing?

Fr. John

At This point I am not sure as there seems to be nothing agreed upon, only the same points being made over and over without any agreement whatsoever between either side. I thought for diologue, there would be something to agree on that both sides agreed with; maybe I am wrong about it, buts just my personal opinion, no offence intended to anyone.

 

[mardukm]

What does the Catholic Church do if the Pope teaches heresy? Do not tell me that cannot happen, because the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the 6th Ecumenical Council which officially condemned Pope Honorius I for teaching heresy.
What do you do if you have a corrupt Pope like Pope Alexander VI, the Pope looses his sanity or becomes too ill to carry out his duties? That is one of my chief criticisms of the Roman Catholic concept of the papacy. As I understand it there is no way to get rid of a bad Pope.

Thanks for the question, Father. The only canonical way to get rid of a bad Pope is to question his election. Bad popes got into office because secular powers had a great hand in papal elections during those days. On the other hand, it would be canonically easy in those days to contest the election of a bad Pope because of that same factor (since ancient canon law rejects the validity of acts unduly influenced by the secular power).

Nowadays, it is extremely difficult, probably impossible, for a bad Pope to get into office, given that his election involves a much more comprehensive body of electors than during the patristic or Middle Ages.

But on the assumption that a bad Pope gets into office…well, as there is no ancient Canon governing that exigency, except the issue of a valid election, and no valid Pope has ever been deposed in the Church, I suppose the Fathers of a reunion council will have to invent something - but do even the Fathers of an Ecum Council have the authority to invent a new canon without justification or model from what went before?

On a theoretical level, if a Pope were bad (doctrinally or morally), no one has any obligation to follow anything that Pope says or does that is contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Church. When he realizes no one is following him, he will most likely abdicate.

So the two ways that one can get rid of a bad Pope:
(1) question his election;
(2) have the Church (especially his brother bishops) compel him to abdicate.

The first step, of course, would be for his brother bishops to offer correction to the Pope. If the bad Pope does not accept correction, then they should (imo) take actions that would compel him to abdicate.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

At This point I am not sure as there seems to be nothing agreed upon, only the same points being made over and over without any agreement whatsoever between either side. I thought for diologue, there would be something to agree on that both sides agreed with; maybe I am wrong about it, buts just my personal opinion, no offence intended to anyone.

No offense taken, but I don’t see it that way at all.

Heck, we have a fairly significant amount of agreement with all Christians; significantly more with Anglicans and Lutherans (well, the more conservative Anglicans and Lutherans anyhow); and significantly more than that with the Orthodox.

P.S. Unless you meant that we don’t have any *more *agreement now than we did when the thread started. If so I can agree with that.

 

[spina1953]

No offense taken, but I don’t see it that way at all.

Heck, we have a fairly significant amount of agreement with all Christians; significantly more with Anglicans and Lutherans (well, the more conservative Anglicans and Lutherans anyhow); and significantly more than that with the Orthodox.

[P.S. Unless you meant that we don’t have any *more

agreement now than we did when the thread started. If so I can agree with that. ]

Yes Father That was I was speaking bout as of this forum, hopefully at some point we can agree with somethig. I know and believe you are sincere in what you say just as the others who post are, and I pray that we will all learn something about what we believe from each other in a way that is helpful. I have nothing against anyone posting as all opinions are I think for the good of all posters.