- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
(Controversial; TAW only) Orthodox position on the first Assisi event of 1986?
- Thread starter TheLostCoin
- Start date
- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't think the two positions are mutually incompatible. One can be a poor leader and be a horrible sinner. If one is a horrible sinner, they often are nothing but a poor leader, especially for those around them.
Judas was a poor leader who would often steal money from the donations to the poor. His sin of greed led him to be one of the most notorious human beings in history.
Eutyches was a poor leader who honestly seemed really confused about what he was preaching. Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of what he preached, for even after admonitions at a Synodal level from both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, he stayed an obstinate heretic to his death, and brought many a soul away from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to a heresy that logically implied that God wasn't actually God, or that God doesn't even exist as traditionally understood.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
...not even sure where to start with this one...
If you set the Pope as the ultimate Epistemological standard (that is, THE ultimate standard by which true doctrine is known and explained), even above the authority of Ecumenical Councils, you cannot say when he says something you don't like "Oh, he's not a real Pope" based on a standard outside of the Pope, through a redefinition of your initial premises.
Especially if you hold on to the decrees of Vatican I.
"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema."
Decrees of Vat. Ecum. Council I: text - IntraText CT
It follows the logic, therefore, of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
"All True Scotsmen drink Whiskey."
"Mel Gibson is a Scotsman who doesn't drink Whiskey."
"Then he isn't a true Scotsman."
No, the first sentence is proven objectively false, rather than Mel Gibson not being a Scotsman. You don't get to redefine a definition just so something is proven true, when in it's initial definition it's proven false.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
A Bishop doesn't lose his Bishophood when he becomes a public heretic, according to the paradigm of Sacramental theology within Roman Catholicism. The fact that there is a recognition of the validity of Sacraments in the Eastern Churches (Ancient Churches of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox) is a testament to this, because traditionally speaking, all of these Churches were viewed as heretical by Rome.
So why would a Pope - a Bishop - lose the papacy when he becomes a public heretic?
And even then, wouldn't it violate the indefectability of the Roman Church were the Roman Church to embrace harmful discipline and theology from the top down, and mandatory for all the Church to embrace - which has happened for the Sedevacantist?
And nobody, according to Vatican I, which Sedevacantists of Benevacantists subscribe to, nobody, has the authority to judge the Pope. Nobody.
No, it isn't. Read the texts of Vatican I; the Pope is the source of irreformable judgments on matters of doctrines and morals when speaking Ex Cathedra.
Moreover, Pope Pius XII stated that while Encyclicals may contain errors, they can never contain information harmful to souls and falls under the Ordinary teaching power, where "he who hears you, hears Me," and demands submission. What does this say about an Ecumenical Council which was approved by the whole Church and made mandatory for communion (Pope Benedict made that clear with the SSPX), and the Church which canonized the guy who read, edited, and approved of the degrees with Apostolic authority?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
dzheremi
Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
- Aug 27, 2014
- 13,539
- 13,690
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
I'm sorry, I know I said I'd bow out, but since I'm the one who brought it up in the first place by bringing up how comparatively recently both the EO Church and my own OO Church have actually forcibly deposed errant patriarchs, I have to ask: who judges whether or not this has been met, particularly in an environment when the strictures placed on the judgment of the Pope found in Vatican I are apparently in place? Because my point was that we both (EO and OO) can point to not only who would judge our patriarchs, but who actually has within the living memory.
Meanwhile, you can have events like Assisi which are a public display of heresy and no one faces synodal discipline for it -- certainly not the Pope himself. So it's at very best circular reasoning, because since "a man loses his papacy when he becomes a public heretic", and JPII did not lose his papacy as a result of this, therefore it must not have been heretical.
Well isn't that convenient.
Upvote
0
- Jan 26, 2007
- 41,541
- 20,059
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
The Sedevacantist not only violates the promise of the Indefectability of the Chair of Peter (that the Bishop of Rome would never defect into heresy, such that communion with Rome = communion with heresy), but they are in a precarious situation where they are not only not in communion with Rome (as they aren't), they have differing theological opinions (Sedevacantists like Most Holy Family Monastery will call the SSPV heretical and Apostate), but all the Cardinals ordained in the Old Latin Rite are dead. So, how does a new Pope get elected? Some Sedevacantists take this to a whole new level by proposing that there are some old Cardinals hiding in the woods, or they become Conclavists, where they elect their own Pope. See Pope Michael.
Upvote
0
- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Okay, well, is it okay to sing prayers alongside heretics, pagans, and infidels?
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2007
- 7,869
- 2,543
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Sure, anyone can be bad & unwise. I just do not think the players here are bad though. I think their wisdom is affected by Murphy’s Law: Murphy's law - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 26, 2007
- 41,541
- 20,059
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2007
- 7,869
- 2,543
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Perhaps a different approach could be taken within Trinitarian Christians & non Christians in promoting common humanity. I would think if at least certain non Christian groups can accept, in some sense, what St. Paul says in Romans 13:8-10 & ( I think this book should be read by all parties) what C.S. Lewis writes about in: The Abolition of Man The Abolition of Man - Wikipedia
Perhaps (!) some form of dialogue can take place. I would think no shared religious observances should take place just dialogue. Maybe in this way Christian Faith would not be compromised and at least some form of affirmation of common sense could be given. That would be it!
I am not too bright just trying to offer what little I might have to ( if any).
Perhaps (!) some form of dialogue can take place. I would think no shared religious observances should take place just dialogue. Maybe in this way Christian Faith would not be compromised and at least some form of affirmation of common sense could be given. That would be it!
I am not too bright just trying to offer what little I might have to ( if any).
Upvote
0
zippy2006
Dragonsworn
Sorry, but your approach is facile. What do you suppose happens when two Popes theoretically contradict one another? I gave the Church's teaching and nothing have you said has contradicted it (e.g. Papal infallibility does not imply the possibility of Papal heresy - quite the contrary).
Upvote
0
- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,539
- 12,093
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
If they are speaking ex cathedra, your Church teaches that that is a theoretical impossibility
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
zippy2006
Dragonsworn
Sure, but I don't see the need to try to read the minds of laymen. If we want to go back to Fr. Matt's post we will find that what was said wasn't even overly problematic. Changing a canon is not the same thing as committing heresy, and "teaching" could refer to any number of things.
So you think that if you can't appeal someone's decision to a synod then you owe that person slavish obedience? That's a pretty weak (and unsound) argument.
A response of faith is only required for de fide dogmas, and the number of those given by Popes can be counted on one hand.
Why do we need to talk about forcible depositions? If the Pope becomes a public heretic he is no longer the Pope. A conclave would presumably ensue.
I'm sure many can argue many things.
You are arguing for a different model of ecclesial governance, and you think that Catholic ecclesiology is flawed and problematic. So again, "The idea that you're going to solve these issues by way of systemic considerations is fundamentally flawed (and, ironically, strongly modern in character)."
Right: you think synodality is better. I'm not confused on your position.
I'm not sure how it would work. Unprecedented events do not have such procedure and precedent. It is possible that Francis' successor will put such a thing in place.
Upvote
0
- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,539
- 12,093
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Which Catholic dogma says can't happen. Can you as a Catholic disagree with Catholic dogma?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,539
- 12,093
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Similar threads
