Why is a synodal government better than a monarchical government?
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.
Okay. I thought you were concerned with the Pope-as-doctrinal-dictator scenario, in which case ipso facto deposition is relevant.
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?
It is telling to me to me that the Western Schism (1378-1417) was ended by a council (the Council of Constance, 1414-1417).
What, exactly? Again, if the Pope is a heretic but he cannot be forcibly removed (and I presume can appeal to his own infallibility in some set of circumstances), what is the point of saying that you recognize this as the way that it would be dealt with?
Right. "Oriental Orthodoxy is the True Church." As noted earlier, I'm not interested in that entrenched argument.
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.
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?
A few highlights from the Apostolic Constitutions of that council:
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 the Roman Pope's judgments are above any council. Furthermore:
this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples
The See can never be in error. So I guess it's a good thing you likewise have this:
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,that is, when,in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
"of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church"...so it's a power that he holds of himself.
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? I don't see how any reading of Vatican I allows for such an idea.
I have heard Catholics say that he may be a
personal heretic, meaning that he may personally hold views that are heretical, but that he will not teach them, by virtue of the promise given to his Church by Christ in supposedly setting up the office of the Papacy. Not sure how prominent that view is, but anyway it runs into the same problem that all RC ecclesiological objections/justifications run into: it's all fine and well to say that such and such a thing is unprecedented or won't ever happen or whatever, but with an ecclesiology in place that effectively sets the man up as the standard to which he is beholden, there's no way of actually being able to say "Yeah, I think we've got a heretic on our hands"
and then actually doing something about it.
Just think about all the Roman Catholic traditionalists and conservatives who call Pope Francis a heretic for various reasons. Does that mean that he will be
forcibly deposed by a synod, even if the majority who would be in such a position to meet and discuss the possibility somehow agree that this is what is needed for the defense of the Church and its faith ? No. Of course not.
Because he can't be. And that's not because of any other Church's or individual's preferred ecclesiological model or anything. The RCC did this to itself.
