Three apostolic sees

[The Liturgist]

Well the pope himself is the problem. Does the RCC not have a way to depose a heretical pope? If it were reversed, we would not need Rome to fix things, we would do it ourselves. That is one main difference in our respective Churches. Also, the RCC in many ways has not had doctrinal Orthodoxy for a very long time now. As you well know, in respect to restoring communion, there are MANY things the RCC must do first.

Well I am suggesting we convene a synod and invite traditional Roman Catholic bishops in order to determine whether or not Pope Francis is responsible for Fiducia Supplicans and if he is, to censure or depose him.

Also I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church has historically preserved most aspects of the Orthodox faith: the only real issues concern the role of the Pope and to a lesser extent the filioque, created grace and certain inconsistencies caused by scholastic theology, and the damage to the liturgy caused by the Concilium under Annibale Bugnini in the late 1960s, and these problems it must be stressed are mostly limited to the Western Rites; the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches, particularly those using the Byzantine Rite liturgy*) such as the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches by and large do not have these issues, and insofar as some of them did, due to Latinization, these Latinizations were removed in the wake of Vatican II (the Byzantine Catholic churches were the only Roman Catholic churches whose liturgies were entirely improved in the aftermath of Vatican II, although in recent years there has been some erosion, specifically, a new contemporary language translation of the hymnal and liturgikon introduced in the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church which is extremely unpopular among more traditional Ruthenian Catholics and has earned the nickname “the Teal Horror” from the color of its binding** and the Melkite cathedral in Caracas has a greatly misguided archbishop who has engaged in liturgical abuses.

*Rome never regarded us as heretical, merely schismatic; unfortunately this was not the case with what one might call the “Oriental Catholic Churches” such as the Chaldeans, Syriac Catholics, Coptic Catholics and so on, because prior to the papacy of St. John Paul II, when the future Pope Benedict XVI conducted a detailed examination of the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East and concluded, correctly, that these churches are not monophysite or Nestorian, as the Roman Catholics had previously mistakenly assumed*, and Rome under this assumption had historically modified the liturgy of these churches with extreme Latinization (also the Maronites, despite the Maronite insistence they had always been Roman Catholic, but it is widely believed their schism from the Syriac Orthodox was due to the Maronites having embraced Monothelitism, which the Oriental Orthodox churches have always regarded as heresy), and I believe in some cases the filioque was introduced.

Fortunately most of these churches did not experience liturgical damage in the late 1960s, with the tragic exception of the Maronite Church, whose liturgy, which was previously an ornate West Syriac liturgy very similiar to that of the Syriac Orthodox but with some interesting East Syriac influences, such as the Anaphora of Peter Sharar, was extremely watered down, with the three year lectionary being adopted, and was more severely damaged than even the Ambrosian Rite, which while unfortunately not left undamaged in the aftermath of the misapplication of Sacrosanctum Concilium, at least retains much of its former beauty, and as far as I am aware has not experienced the same degree of liturgical erosion nor has it experienced the frequent liturgical abuses that have been plaguing the Roman Rite and the Maronite Rite.

Indeed, the situation in some Maronite parishes is so bad that I wish the Antiochian Orthodox Church or another Orthodox Church would create a Maronite Rite Vicarate along the same lines as the Western Rite Vicarates that are operated by Antioch and ROCOR. Unfortunately, due to historical reasons, our Syriac Orthodox brethren are not in a position to do this, both due to the schism and also due to the fact that after a thousand years of communion with Rome since the crusades, the Maronites would likely be uncomfortable with a non-Chalcedonian church despite the fact that Oriental Orthodox Christology, as opposed to Nestorian or Monophysite Christology, is entirely compatible with that of Chalcedon, and also despite the fact that the traditional Maronite liturgy most closely resembles the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, in many cases being word-for-word identical. Indeed I suspect that at least some Syriac Catholics are Maronite Catholics frustrated with the changes to the Maronite liturgy, although this is a mere hypothesis; the Syriac Catholic liturgy if anything was made closer to the Syriac Orthodox liturgy in recent decades.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you want to deny the Captain of His Ship, the Church, that is your choice. There was only One Ark and likewise One Church. One would not jump off the Ark because Noah sinned.

Indeed, schism is not the answer to this crisis. However I think you will agree with me that Fiducia Supplicans seriously endangers ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.

 

[concretecamper]

This is from a very orthodox priest.

 

[concretecamper]

Indeed, schism is not the answer to this crisis

Exactly, and schism may have been what Francis was trying to avoid. I wouldn't have done what he did, most conservative Catholic and Bishops wouldn't have done what he did.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If you want to deny the Captain of His Ship, the Church, that is your choice. There was only One Ark and likewise One Church. One would not jump off the Ark because Noah sinned.

But it is YOUR ship and YOUR captain of YOUR church. It is YOUR choice to stay on YOUR ship and accept the direction YOUR ship is sailing. Our ships are NOT sailing in that direction and YOUR captain is NOT our captain.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well I am suggesting we convene a synod and invite traditional Roman Catholic bishops in order to determine whether or not Pope Francis is responsible for Fiducia Supplicans and if he is, to censure or depose him.

Also I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church has historically preserved most aspects of the Orthodox faith: the only real issues concern the role of the Pope and to a lesser extent the filioque, created grace and certain inconsistencies caused by scholastic theology

I respectfully disagree. There are doctrinal issues that occur from the very beginning (original sin/guilt) and because of this, other "innovative" doctrines arise from it. The Filioque is not minor IMO. There are many others.

 

[The Liturgist]

I respectfully disagree. There are doctrinal issues that occur from the very beginning (original sin/guilt) and because of this, other "innovative" doctrines arise from it. The Filioque is not minor IMO. There are many others.

Did I say the filioque was minor? No. However, there are approaches to reconciliation, and don’t take my word for it - St. John Maximovitch said as much.

But this is also besides the point. The point is we need to help our Roman Catholic brethren take appropriate action to ascertain the status of Pope Francis, and determine who allowed Fiducia Supplicans, and ensure that those responsible are deposed and anathematized.

 

[The Liturgist]

Exactly, and schism may have been what Francis was trying to avoid. I wouldn't have done what he did, most conservative Catholic and Bishops wouldn't have done what he did.

Well if Pope Francis did enact Fiducia Supplicans to avert a schism, he made a decision so ill-advised that it would be imperative that he be deposed. That said, we don’t know that this is his doing, since it directly contradicts his earlier statements. There are peculiar things going on. For example, we still have no idea what caused Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, to resign. It does seem strange furthermore that Pope Francis could manage to become friends with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, who is an extremely traditional Russian Orthodox bishop, if he were inclined to do this.

That being said, if the Pope is, as you say, captain of the ship, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his crew, even if they acted against his orders, and as such my view is that he should at this time resign or be deposed for failing to preserve the integrity of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. An investigation can then be launched by a conservative Pope (ideally the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, as I am not aware of any Roman Rite cardinals who are young enough to be papabile and sufficiently conservative, and a Byzantine Rite Pope could help reunite the Catholic and Orthodox churches) to determine who is actually responsible, and potentially exonerate an emeritus Pope Francis.

Of course I fear that this won’t happen, and I am genuinely afraid of the very real possibility that pro-homosexual forces will seize control of the RCC in violation of its own canon law. Particularly since this literally just happened in the United Methodist Church. These progressives do not play by the rules.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Did I say the filioque was minor? No. However, there are approaches to reconciliation, and don’t take my word for it - St. John Maximovitch said as much.

But this is also besides the point. The point is we need to help our Roman Catholic brethren take appropriate action to ascertain the status of Pope Francis, and determine who allowed Fiducia Supplicans, and ensure that those responsible are deposed and anathematized.

You said "to a lesser extent the filioque" so I assumed you thought it was a minor issue. Sure there are approaches to reconciliation...the first would be to return to Orthodoxy. The RCC should return the pope to his correct position within the Church, as but the Patriarch/Bishop of Rome and no other patriarchal territories. I do not believe the Roman Cardinal college and curia would accept our decisions as we would not accept theirs so it would be a futile endeavor IMO.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have seen an interesting argument from some traditional Catholics to the extent tnat a Pope loses legitimacy if they contradict the traditional Roman Catholic faith, and allowing the blessing of homosexual relations is clearly that. So we have to pray that traditional Catholics are able to successfully take action to remove him, which is unprecedented; in the early church, of the autocephalous bishops, no Roman (or, interestingly, as far as I can recall, Hagiopolitan or Cypriot) bishop was ever deposed, but Antiochene, Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan bishops were, and since Canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea, clearly indicate that the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem are equals of the bishop of Rome, it would be possible according to the canons of the ecumenical councils to depose a Roman bishop.

What would be really interesting would be if an Orthodox prelate could be persuaded to depose the Pope. It would obviously not be sufficient to force Pope Francis to resign, but it would embarrass him. Better yet would be to convene a synod to depose Pope Francis and invite Catholic bishops.

This is sort of along the lines I was thinking. The various Patriarchs working together would tell the pope he should resign. And if he didn't voluntarily resign they would proceed to depose him. At present this can't work because those Patriarchs and the pope are not in communion. So the pope in Rome can't be judged by anyone else in the Latin Rite. Nor of course by anyone not in communion with him. Great idea. Can't happen (yet).

The Orthodox presently have no standing to do such a thing because they have previously decided they don't want a unified Church. Some might, but for the most part they are happy to look down on Catholics. The Orthodox councils are Catholic councils. The early Church Fathers are Catholic Fathers as well as Orthodox Fathers. Catholics accept all the sacraments of the Orthodox. Depending on who you talk to in Orthodoxy my baptism isn't even real. We could have been reunited a generation ago but that wasn't desired by most of the Orthodox. The Orthodox would have had an outsized influence in a united Church. They could probably veto any pick for pope if not get their own pick. Which is why I say they could have prevented the St. Galen Mafia from picking a particular Argentinian. Instead, at least what I'm hearing in CF, they like their superiority position. Catholics need the Orthodox. Everybody knows it. Orthodox say they don't need the Catholics.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Exactly, and schism may have been what Francis was trying to avoid. I wouldn't have done what he did, most conservative Catholic and Bishops wouldn't have done what he did.

That is yet to be seen. Had pope Francis wanted to avoid schism in Germany he could have been far more involved much earlier on. Maybe that is just a fault rather than a calculation to allow the Church in Germany to run towards a cliff. Maybe this is his last ditch attempt to stop them from running over that cliff. I'm not convinced. But maybe it is a case of too little too late. I do hope he takes the German situation seriously and pulls them back into orthodox Christianity. We'll see.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well if Pope Francis did enact Fiducia Supplicans to avert a schism, he made a decision so ill-advised that it would be imperative that he be deposed. That said, we don’t know that this is his doing, since it directly contradicts his earlier statements. There are peculiar things going on. For example, we still have no idea what caused Pope Benedict XVI, memory eternal, to resign. It does seem strange furthermore that Pope Francis could manage to become friends with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, who is an extremely traditional Russian Orthodox bishop, if he were inclined to do this.

One can seldom tell with pope Francis. He has his good moments and his bad moments.

That being said, if the Pope is, as you say, captain of the ship, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his crew, even if they acted against his orders, and as such my view is that he should at this time resign or be deposed for failing to preserve the integrity of the Roman Catholic Magisterium.

It's not popular in some Catholic circles for me to agree, but I do. He should resign. Being deposed is not an option but if the clear majority of cardinals asked for his resignation it could happen. It's just that pope Francis picked the majority of cardinals, some of them for ideological reasons, so I really doubt a clear majority would demand or even gingerly ask for his resignation. And the Orthodox have no standing to say a thing sadly. They stand apart.

An investigation can then be launched by a conservative Pope (ideally the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, as I am not aware of any Roman Rite cardinals who are young enough to be papabile and sufficiently conservative, and a Byzantine Rite Pope could help reunite the Catholic and Orthodox churches) to determine who is actually responsible, and potentially exonerate an emeritus Pope Francis.

Somehow there needs to be a reckoning. And a cleansing. And a reconsecration of St. Peter's after the Pachamama debacle of 2019 (if that hasn't been secretly done already).

Of course I fear that this won’t happen, and I am genuinely afraid of the very real possibility that pro-homosexual forces will seize control of the RCC in violation of its own canon law. Particularly since this literally just happened in the United Methodist Church. These progressives do not play by the rules.

They make their own rules. It has been a sad thing to see the Methodists slide and the Anglicans slide and we could say that it could never happen here. But we knew there was a powerful Lavender Mafia. Just not HOW powerful it was. The open question is whether the Lavender Mafia can control the college of cardinals, or whether the various cardinals from 'the periphery' still have their Catholic wits about them. It's an open question. Prayer and fasting might be required. If people do that any more.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's not popular in some Catholic circles for me to agree, but I do. He should resign. Being deposed is not an option but if the clear majority of cardinals asked for his resignation it could happen. It's just that pope Francis picked the majority of cardinals, some of them for ideological reasons, so I really doubt a clear majority would demand or even gingerly ask for his resignation. And the Orthodox have no standing to say a thing sadly. They stand apart.

We may not have jurisdictional authority, but if a large number of our bishops anathematized him and declared him to be deposed, and severed ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic Church pending his removal, it would likely expedite his departure and that of any persons involved in this. We have what you might call “soft power” particularly considering how aggressively the Roman Catholic Church has been courting us for the past several decades. That said I doubt our bishops will wield it.

However, I am not convinced that only the College of Cardinals could depose Pope Francis. I think if an emergency council were convened and a majority of Catholic bishops attended and voted to depose him, the College of Cardinals would have to cooperate. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the College of Cardinals itself should be asked to resign.

The interesting fact, put forward by Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky, is that since the dioceses own the property, diocesan bishops should simply ignore any attempt by the Vatican to depose them without just cause. Unfortunately, this could entail a possible loss of control of the German church to left wing elements, but it would be better to lose control of the German church than to lose the entire church to those who would legitimize homosexuality. However, Germany is not America or Africa or a conservative Asian country, and it is possible that the mechanisms by which Bishop Strickland could have in theory avoided being deposed according to Dr. Kwasniewsky are absent in that land.

But right now, we must pray fervently for a deliverance, because the horrifying reality is that Fiducia Supplicans is real, and it followed literally within weeks of the Church of England authorizing the blessing of gay marriages, and it is literally the same thing. As of right now, we can no longer say that the Vatican is following its own magisterium and canon law concerning homosexuality.

Roman Catholics must take action to compel the resignation of Pope Francis and that of anyone who could have influenced, coerced or compelled him to allow Fiducia Supplicans, unless he immediately withdraws it within a certain deadline. And we Orthodox Christians ought to do anything in our power to assist in this process, because if the Roman Catholic Church does embrace homosexuality, it places us in grave danger (likewise the other traditional denominations such as the LCMS/LCC, ACNA, the continuing Anglicans and the Global South, and the traditional Presbyterians and Global Methodists and the Southern Baptist Convention are also endangered and should also assist in this process). Right now the problem is that very few people outside of the traditionalist Roman Catholic community are even aware of Fiducia Supplicans, and that must change. If this persists, there need to be ecumenical demonstrations in front of the cathedrals of liberal cardinals urging their resignation.

 

[The Liturgist]

Prayer and fasting might be required. If people do that any more.

The Orthodox fast more than half of the year, including every Wednesday and Friday. Also the sui juris Eastern Catholics, and the Traditional Latin Mass communities.

 

[The Liturgist]

Depending on who you talk to in Orthodoxy my baptism isn't even real.

Every canonical Orthodox church recognizes your baptism. The Old Calendarists who would deny the legitimacy of your baptism are schismatics equivalent to Sedevacantist Catholics.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If you want to deny the Captain of His Ship, the Church, that is your choice. There was only One Ark and likewise One Church. One would not jump off the Ark because Noah sinned.

It seems to me that some Christians have given up on the oneness of the Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well I am suggesting we convene a synod and invite traditional Roman Catholic bishops in order to determine whether or not Pope Francis is responsible for Fiducia Supplicans and if he is, to censure or depose him.

Coming from the Orthodox such a suggestion can only make matters worse.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

However I think you will agree with me that Fiducia Supplicans seriously endangers ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.

While some Orthodox (and one hopes it is most) seek union it is also true that some do not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Exactly, and schism may have been what Francis was trying to avoid. I wouldn't have done what he did, most conservative Catholic and Bishops wouldn't have done what he did.

Yet the bishops are not pope and cannot know everything that he knows, nor have the promise given to saint Peter and his successors. To be pope is to be alone in many ways, alone among men, but with Christ. Anyway, he has spoken, the next pope may speak a different word, as indeed Benedict XVI spoke a different word. The times and the circumstances make demands and God willing, the pope of the day will hear the Spirit as he speaks and guides the Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Our ships are NOT sailing in that direction and YOUR captain is NOT our captain.

Indeed, what you say about your many ships is right. They sail a different course with a different captain for each of them.