Catholic Patriarch excomunicates pope
#21
Here is an excellent article written by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. on the papacy and excommunications.  (I serve his private Mass on Saturdays, for what it's worth. :) )

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp

And here is his own summary of it:
Quote:To sum up then:

1. The traditional and continuing law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages, allows for a heretical or apostate cardinal to participate fully in a papal conclave and even to be elected pope. If he could validly attain the papacy as a heretic or apostate, he could certainly retain it validly, even while remaining in that unhappy spiritual state.

2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.
Reply
#22
oh ok.
sip
that was sean connery no less.
Reply
#23
wth
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#24
(09-27-2011, 08:07 PM)Steven Wrote: Here is an excellent article written by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. on the papacy and excommunications.  (I serve his private Mass on Saturdays, for what it's worth. :) )

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp

And here is his own summary of it:
Quote:To sum up then:

1. The traditional and continuing law of the Church, expressed repeatedly in papal constitutions ever since the Middle Ages, allows for a heretical or apostate cardinal to participate fully in a papal conclave and even to be elected pope. If he could validly attain the papacy as a heretic or apostate, he could certainly retain it validly, even while remaining in that unhappy spiritual state.

2. A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication. However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible, the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts, though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. In other words, he would still be juridically the true pope whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin, even though at the inner level at which grace operates he might well be totally separated from the mystical body of Christ.

But, there IS a competent authority on earth that can excommunicate the Pope.  The 6th Ecumenical council excommunicated Pope Honorius, even though posthumously.  But the excommunication was not contested by Rome.
Reply
#25
(09-27-2011, 09:06 PM)Melkite Wrote: But, there IS a competent authority on earth that can excommunicate the Pope.  The 6th Ecumenical council excommunicated Pope Honorius, even though posthumously.  But the excommunication was not contested by Rome.

It's easy to excommunicate a dead man and Rome probably had its reasons for not contesting it but, at least since the Fifth Council of the Lateran and its condemnation of the Conciliarist heresy, which pretends that a Council is above the Pope, it is no longer possible to make your statement above without falling into heresy.
Reply
#26
(09-27-2011, 04:44 PM)a83192 Wrote: #!

Is this guy nuts?
## This seems fairly informative - the history behind the incident looks rather tangled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_C...triarchate
Reply
#27
(09-27-2011, 08:07 PM)Steven Wrote: (I serve his private Mass on Saturdays, for what it's worth. :) )

You lucky so and so! :)
Reply
#28
(09-27-2011, 09:16 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-27-2011, 09:06 PM)Melkite Wrote: But, there IS a competent authority on earth that can excommunicate the Pope.  The 6th Ecumenical council excommunicated Pope Honorius, even though posthumously.  But the excommunication was not contested by Rome.

It's easy to excommunicate a dead man and Rome probably had its reasons for not contesting it but, at least since the Fifth Council of the Lateran and its condemnation of the Conciliarist heresy, which pretends that a Council is above the Pope, it is no longer possible to make your statement above without falling into heresy.

But heresy is based on truth, not law.  Truth can't change, so if it was true prior to the 5th Lateran Council, it's still true now.  The 5th Lateran Council can't change the truth, so if it declared it heresy, it was in error to do so, and so it is not heretical to make such a statement now.
Reply
#29
(09-27-2011, 09:30 PM)Melkite Wrote: But heresy is based on truth, not law.  Truth can't change, so if it was true prior to the 5th Lateran Council, it's still true now.  The 5th Lateran Council can't change the truth, so if it declared it heresy, it was in error to do so, and so it is not heretical to make such a statement now.

So you're saying that an undoubted Ecumenical Council of the Church, presided over by the Pope of Rome, taught error?
Reply
#30
(09-27-2011, 09:30 PM)Melkite Wrote: But heresy is based on truth, not law.  Truth can't change, so if it was true prior to the 5th Lateran Council, it's still true now.  The 5th Lateran Council can't change the truth, so if it declared it heresy, it was in error to do so, and so it is not heretical to make such a statement now.


And herein lies the inherent contradiction in the modern ultra-montanist position. It's fairly obvious even with a cursory reading of Church history that the first millennium Church did not behave the way the modern Catholic Church does. The modern Catholic Church says that no one can judge the pope yet a pope was excommunicated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and other popes have been stricken from the diptychs on numerous occasions. The modern Catholic Church says the pope alone can call an ecumenical council yet none of the first seven were called by the pope. The modern Catholic Church says the pope is infallible in regards to faith and morals yet we have example after example of saints and fathers opposing the on matters of faith when they disagreed with him. There is obviously some disconnect here. Reminds me of a favorite quote of many traditionalist Catholics.




We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)