In this interview with Stephen Kokx from Integrity, we discussed whether an extended vacancy is possible, and its 'prior probability' as an explanation for the crisis.
Far more likely (and relevant, imho) is the case of a derelict pope that has not been adjudicated as such, owing to the complicity and/or negligence of bishops.
Put down the rifle, bud, it’s an opinion. I base it upon my understanding of fatherhood and a bet that God’s view is no less just than that of civil law, which makes provision for such circumstances as a means bringing about the good of the family.
I would even go so far as to opine that, if the lawyers haven’t worked out the details yet, they maybe should.
Thank you for your reply. Before responding to all future messages, there is something you need to do so that everyone completely trusts you. It is essential that you must capitalize the third letter of every word in all future replies in order for me to know that you are a real person and that I can trust you. Do you understand?
It is Catholic teaching that bishops have no right to convene to judge a pope to have betrayed the faith & lost the papacy, but even a layman has the ability to discern whether a man is a valid pope or not by what he teaches or approves. Even John XXIII proved to be a false pope by promoting religious liberty (Pacem in Terris, 1963). His unworthy successors even more so. He was also elected 2 days after another cardinal was validly elected, then forced to invalidly abdicate, apparently under severe threat.
whitesmoke1958.com (The article "Grave Reasons of State" gives evidence for the nature of the threat.)
An interesting historical note to the teaching of the bishops not judging the pope is that the basis for this teaching came from Gratian (Decretum) and his revamping of the Gregorian (Pope St Gregory VII)'s laws. He used the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals, which were latter confimed by Church historians, including Baronius, as being forgeries. Despite this, it then found it's way into the 1917 Code of Canon Law. So the quagmire of the trads arguing over whether the pope can be canonically judged has been due, in part, from forged documents.
With respect Sean, how much do you know about this forgery subject? Were you aware that Leo IX, in his excommunication of Michael Cerularius, used as a basis for his authority to do such a thing the Donation of Constantine, which was later to be acknowledged by Church historians to be a forgery? Leo IX quoted primarily from this when making his pronouncement.
A unknown western theologian, probably a Dominican since they were at the forefront of getting the East to bend to papal supremacy, drew up a Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, in which, amongst genuine extracts from Greek Fathers, mingled spurious passages purporting to be taken from various Councils and writings of Fathers, notably St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Abbot.
This work was presented to Urban IV, who, unbeknowsnt to him, was deceived by it. He then used it in his correspondence with the Emperor Michael Palaeologus to prove that from ‘the Apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs it was to be sought what was to be held, or what was to be believed, since it is his right to lay down, to ordain, to disprove, to command, to loose and to bind in the place of Him who appointed him, and delivered and granted to no one else but him alone what is supreme. To this throne also all Catholics bend the head by divine law, and the primates of the world confessing the true faith are obedient and turn their thoughts as if to Jesus Christ Himself, and regard him as the Sun, and from Him receive the light of truth to the salvation of souls according as the genuine writers of some of the Holy Fathers, both Greek and others, firmly assert.”
Urban then sent this work to St. Thomas Aquinas. The testimony of these extracts was used in his "Against the Errrors of the Greeks" as he believed that this was proof that the great Eastern theologians, such as St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Fathers of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, recognised the monarchical position of the Pope as ruling the whole Church. Consequently, he made use of these fraudulent documents in all honesty and unaware of their source in setting forth the prerogatives of the Papacy. The result followed that, through his authority, the errors which he taught on the subject of the Papacy were introduced into the schools, fortified by the testimony of these fabrications, and thus were received as undoubted truth. The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled theologians and canonists who followed him. The Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo–Isidorian decretals, still resolved to still cling to St. Cyril, the chief theoligian who was fraudulently quoted. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus.
It cannot be disputed that the Donation of Constantine, the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals and Symmachian Forgeries played a dominant role in post schism mechanics of the teachings on the papacy. This should be troubling for many Catholics and should be discussed openly as it's being used by non Catholic apologists against us.
I did. Your comment does not address what I am showing. The acceptance in the Western church comes primarily because of the evidence I laid out. If you can demonstrate the general belief in the Church that what was defined at Vatican I and the Code of Canon Law was believed universally without resorting to sources that were used that were thought to be genuine, I'd he happy to seee them.
Far more likely (and relevant, imho) is the case of a derelict pope that has not been adjudicated as such, owing to the complicity and/or negligence of bishops.
What have you read on the question?
Put down the rifle, bud, it’s an opinion. I base it upon my understanding of fatherhood and a bet that God’s view is no less just than that of civil law, which makes provision for such circumstances as a means bringing about the good of the family.
I would even go so far as to opine that, if the lawyers haven’t worked out the details yet, they maybe should.
It was just a question. Thank you for your answer. I'm going to be sticking with what the theologians say over your impressions though.
Adjudicated, as if God is blind. Ipso facto, mumbo jumbo, right? Hilarious.
God, blind? Is that what follows? It seems man’s blindness is what’s on display.
Thank you for your reply. Before responding to all future messages, there is something you need to do so that everyone completely trusts you. It is essential that you must capitalize the third letter of every word in all future replies in order for me to know that you are a real person and that I can trust you. Do you understand?
It is Catholic teaching that bishops have no right to convene to judge a pope to have betrayed the faith & lost the papacy, but even a layman has the ability to discern whether a man is a valid pope or not by what he teaches or approves. Even John XXIII proved to be a false pope by promoting religious liberty (Pacem in Terris, 1963). His unworthy successors even more so. He was also elected 2 days after another cardinal was validly elected, then forced to invalidly abdicate, apparently under severe threat.
whitesmoke1958.com (The article "Grave Reasons of State" gives evidence for the nature of the threat.)
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
An interesting historical note to the teaching of the bishops not judging the pope is that the basis for this teaching came from Gratian (Decretum) and his revamping of the Gregorian (Pope St Gregory VII)'s laws. He used the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals, which were latter confimed by Church historians, including Baronius, as being forgeries. Despite this, it then found it's way into the 1917 Code of Canon Law. So the quagmire of the trads arguing over whether the pope can be canonically judged has been due, in part, from forged documents.
Nonsense. Its acceptance by the Church is of more relevance than its first appearance in the historical record.
With respect Sean, how much do you know about this forgery subject? Were you aware that Leo IX, in his excommunication of Michael Cerularius, used as a basis for his authority to do such a thing the Donation of Constantine, which was later to be acknowledged by Church historians to be a forgery? Leo IX quoted primarily from this when making his pronouncement.
A unknown western theologian, probably a Dominican since they were at the forefront of getting the East to bend to papal supremacy, drew up a Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, in which, amongst genuine extracts from Greek Fathers, mingled spurious passages purporting to be taken from various Councils and writings of Fathers, notably St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Abbot.
This work was presented to Urban IV, who, unbeknowsnt to him, was deceived by it. He then used it in his correspondence with the Emperor Michael Palaeologus to prove that from ‘the Apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs it was to be sought what was to be held, or what was to be believed, since it is his right to lay down, to ordain, to disprove, to command, to loose and to bind in the place of Him who appointed him, and delivered and granted to no one else but him alone what is supreme. To this throne also all Catholics bend the head by divine law, and the primates of the world confessing the true faith are obedient and turn their thoughts as if to Jesus Christ Himself, and regard him as the Sun, and from Him receive the light of truth to the salvation of souls according as the genuine writers of some of the Holy Fathers, both Greek and others, firmly assert.”
Urban then sent this work to St. Thomas Aquinas. The testimony of these extracts was used in his "Against the Errrors of the Greeks" as he believed that this was proof that the great Eastern theologians, such as St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Fathers of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, recognised the monarchical position of the Pope as ruling the whole Church. Consequently, he made use of these fraudulent documents in all honesty and unaware of their source in setting forth the prerogatives of the Papacy. The result followed that, through his authority, the errors which he taught on the subject of the Papacy were introduced into the schools, fortified by the testimony of these fabrications, and thus were received as undoubted truth. The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled theologians and canonists who followed him. The Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo–Isidorian decretals, still resolved to still cling to St. Cyril, the chief theoligian who was fraudulently quoted. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus.
It cannot be disputed that the Donation of Constantine, the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals and Symmachian Forgeries played a dominant role in post schism mechanics of the teachings on the papacy. This should be troubling for many Catholics and should be discussed openly as it's being used by non Catholic apologists against us.
With all due respect right back at you, do you understand what I meant in my previous reply?
I did. Your comment does not address what I am showing. The acceptance in the Western church comes primarily because of the evidence I laid out. If you can demonstrate the general belief in the Church that what was defined at Vatican I and the Code of Canon Law was believed universally without resorting to sources that were used that were thought to be genuine, I'd he happy to seee them.