Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nothing in Catholic doctrine teaches this.
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.
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)."
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.
I think that again in practice (in terms of what actually happens), the Pope and even more the 'office of the papacy' is given slavish obedience by many Catholics, yes. And such is enshrined in law by making the Pope above being subject to discipline when necessary, for the good of the Church.
Is there a list of those anywhere? It seems like to the extent that such a thing has been tried, the results don't match up with one another, which tends to call into question the entire point of making such a statement. "You only have to believe in de fide dogmas." "Okay, where can I find those, so that I know what is required?" "Well, this guy's opinion is that there are 418, and this guy's opinion is that there are 255, and this guy's opinion is..."
Seems like 'infallibility' or whatever isn't invoked or operative in situations like this where it would actually be helpful to have a definitive answer, but okay. If you know what you have to believe, that's really all that matters, but the idea that this should appeal to anyone else as being something that is on firmer ground than the traditional synodal government of the Church is a bit baffling to me and I'm sure to other non-Catholics.
Because that's what I specifically brought up. I'm not saying you have to talk about it, but that's one very obvious thing that separates Orthodoxy from Catholicism, ecclesiologically-speaking. Orthodox patriarchs are not infallible and may be forcibly deposed. Roman Catholic popes cannot be.
This does not mean anything in a world where the Pope is infallible.
To be frank, it's not unprecendented if it's already been happening for about a millennia (in deference to where I'm posting) and you've just decided to ignore it and claim it can't happen since 1870. It's happened, and it's still happening, and it will keep happening until the Roman Church gets its ecclesiological house in order. This would not involve adopting a foreign system of governance, but only to return to what was held to by your Church in earlier eras, before the declarations of infallibility and so on became law for you.
Why would he need to if Vatican I is true?
I'm not concerned with some layman's musings. What does the Catholic Church actually teach regarding this? To the best of my knowledge it nowhere teaches that a Pope ceases to be Pope if he teaches heresy. It does not even entertain the possibility.Above I gave a link to one of Edward Feser's blog posts detailing some of the Catholic teaching around this area. The aftermath of the Avignon Papacy occasioned much theological speculation in this area and Feser's ponts--particularly his quotation of Catholic Encyclopedia--are not at all controversial.
To the best of my knowledge it nowhere teaches that a Pope ceases to be Pope if he teaches heresy.
Why is a synodal government better than a monarchical government?
Okay. I thought you were concerned with the Pope-as-doctrinal-dictator scenario, in which case ipso facto deposition is relevant.
Sure it does.
Right. "Oriental Orthodoxy is the True Church." As noted earlier, I'm not interested in that entrenched argument.
I don't follow. What does Vatican I say, and where, that would preclude a pope from putting a policy in place that handles a heretical pope?
And so begin the ad hominemsAnd that is where your knowledge will remain so long as you keep your eyes closed.
And so begin the ad hominems
I have read a lot of primary sources regarding Catholic doctrine. None of them state what your 'source' claims.No, you literally refused to consider a source and then complained about your lack of knowledge. If you don't read, you won't know. Either read the sources you are offered or stop complaining about your lack of knowledge.
I have read a lot of primary sources regarding Catholic doctrine. None of them state what your 'source' claims.
Also, please tell me in which alternate universe, stating "to the best of my knowledge", is understood as complaining about lack of knowledge? Nowhere do I suggest a quantity, limited or broad, of my knowledge, so how do you come to the conclusion my knowledge is limited?
Whether it was your intention or not, it is still ad hominem.
That door swings both ways, brother.That sort of intransigence a sure sign that our conversation is over.
It's not. See Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, 20 (I bet those who are on another forum will recognize who I am by quoting this)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.
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.
In terms of Church government, it is what is historically attested to via the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the early synods at Antioch, Carthage, Alexandria, etc. Rome's ecclesiology did begin to develop quite differently from an early date, but it was nothing like what we would see by the 11th century, with documents like the thankfully-unrecognized Dictatus Papae of 1075 bearing witness to how far Rome developed in this area by that time.
That's not really the same as what I'm talking about, I don't think (unless there's something about ipso facto depositions I'm not aware of). This is why I'm stressing forcible deposition, because everything I've read (and several things I've already linked by now) from the Catholic position says that the Pope cannot be forcibly removed, only pressured to step down.
So, say the Pope commits some act that by virtue of committing him would render him out of his position. If he cannot be forced to step down, because he is not subject to the decisions of a synod, then what happens?
That's precisely why I'm not saying that. The only reason I wrote "in deference to where I'm posting" is because obviously the communion that this subforum represents would say that Rome's going off the rails started at a different time than my own communion would. That's not me saying "Oriental Orthodoxy is the True Church." Do you want to deal with the possibility that Rome's ecclesiology might hamper it in certain situations, or do you want to put words in my mouth? I don't think the latter is appropriate at all.
Tell me: if he is above any council, being the head bishop of a see which is supernaturally preserved from any error, and possessing of himself infallibility as willed to St. Peter when teaching from the chair regarding matters of faith and morals, then how he can be a heretic?
It's not. See Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, 20 (I bet those who are on another forum will recognize who I am by quoting this)
And Vatican I makes it clear that nobody can make such a judgment. By making such a judgment you violate Vatican I.
The fact that you are contemplating Sedevacantism and have to make a judgment on the Pope shows its fundamentally flawed. Let's assume Sedevacantism is true, then; you are in a situation where you believe that a Pope is the inerrant source of faith and communion with him is necessary for salvation; except that you can't be in communion with him, because he's a heretic, and therefore, he isn't a Pope, even though the whole Roman Church as a visible organization recognizes him as such; and the past 6 Popes have been heretics. So whom do you go to communion with? The FSSP, which is in communion with the false Pope? The SSPX, which claims to be in communion with the false Pope, yet really isn't because Pope Benedict made it clear that Vatican II is necessary for communion with Rome? Or you join one of the multitudes of Sedevacantist organizations, which aren't in communion with each other and will accuse each other of heresy and apostasy, Heretical Traditional Priests, the SSPV and salvation, and none of which are recognized by the See of Rome, College of Cardinals, or anybody who lives in Rome. Is Most Holy Family Monastery really the last of the visible church, and on what authority can it claim to be so, when it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope, the Cardinals, or the Bishops? And you can't claim an invisible Church, either, because the claims of an invisible Church are what led to Sedevacantism in the first place.
Also zippy, if attachment to the Tridentine Mass is an issue, there is a Western Rite under the Orthodox Church of Antioch and the ROCOR, which use both a modification of the Anglo-Catholic Mass and the 1955 Roman Missal, except in English and with changes such that the theology is Orthodox and some other minor tweaks (for example, the Confession prayer of Saint John Chrysostom is said).
Such unprecedented events are logically contradictory. And how can there be a Successor to Francis if all the Cardinals are not actually part of the Church, and all have Sacraments which may or may not be invalid, and therefore, can't possibly be ordained because all the Old Rite Cardinals are dead?
Okay, so you believe an oligarchical structure has greater antiquity.
That's what you did: you claimed that the forcible removal of a heretical pope is not an unprecedented event and in the process made a subtle argument for your own communion and ecclesiology. I am not putting words in your mouth.
It is curious that you think I have not admitted the possibility that Rome's ecclesiology might hamper it in certain circumstances, for one of your confreres has come to the conclusion that I am "contemplating Sedevacantism."
The incompatibility of the Roman See with error is precisely the reason why public heresy would mean that he is no longer the Pope.
My original post highlighted that both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox have forcibly removed errant patriarchs in the recent past, to highlight that Rome is alone in its defective modern ecclesiology. It is you who has attempted to transform this into me arguing for my own communion. If that's what I wanted to do, wouldn't it make more sense to do that over an issue that the OO and EO disagree on, rather than something like this where we agree that Rome's ecclesiology is an unacceptable deviation? (I mean, I still wouldn't argue for my communion in a thread unrelated to it, but that would be a more logical way to do so.)
Hmm? So because somebody else wrote something about you, that makes it strange that I wrote something else about you? I don't follow.
No. In reality, it's precisely the reason why you wouldn't be able to tell if such a thing has already happened/is happening/will happen, thereby making this supposed guarantee of protection from error utterly useless.
To be fair, there has been times in History when there wasn't a real Pope, rather an anti-Pope, yet nobody is called a sedevacantist.Sedevacantism, from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"Sedevacantism is the position, held by some traditionalist Catholics,[1][2] that the present occupier of the Holy See is not truly pope due to the mainstream church's espousal of what they see as the heresy of modernism and that, for lack of a valid pope, the See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. The term "sedevacantism" is derived from the Latin phrase sede vacante, which means "with the chair [of Saint Peter] vacant".[3] The phrase is commonly used to refer specifically to a vacancy of the Holy See from the death or resignation of a pope to the election of his successor."
You have said:
"Nickles and dimes. Problematic leaders are indicative of problematic cultures, and problematic cultures influence institutions just as much as they influence leaders. A strong central authority can impede or catalyze problematic cultures (e.g. Pope Paul VI)."
"A man loses the papacy when he becomes a public heretic. Nothing confusing about this. A man also loses his salvation when he commits apostasy. It's not "No True Scotsman." Keep tryin'."
"Because the Papacy is not a sacramental office and confers no indelible mark."
"The incompatibility of the Roman See with error is precisely the reason why public heresy would mean that he is no longer the Pope."
"If a pope tried to declare a heresy infallible, thus contradicting a previous dogma, he would become a public heretic and would no longer be pope."
A belief in Sedevacantism to me is literally what the etymology of the word provides: "A belief that the Chair of Peter is empty." There are some Sedevacantists who believe that, the chair has been empty since Pope John XXIII, some since Pope Paul VI, since Pope John Paul I, etc., so the exact chronology of when the period of Sedevacantism began for the individual Sedevacantist is irrelevant to me.
The fact that you are contemplating the belief of the Chair of Peter being empty, in combination of criticisms of previous Popes like Pope Paul VI, means you are contemplating "Sede Vacante - ism", or the belief that the Chair of Peter is empty.
That's not to mention that you are repeating oft-quoted arguments by committed Sedevacantists, who I've discussed repeatedly with online, about a heretical Pope "ipso-facto" becoming deposed, an opinion stated by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine that isn't actually dogma.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?