Author Topic: 4th Council of Constantinople against Sedevacantism (Read 4536 times)

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **on:** November 24, 2013, 06:26:23 PM »

The Fourth Council of Constantinople-Canon #10:

As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices.

In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.[/u]

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2013, 06:34:10 PM »

Not against sedevacantism per se, but this certainly causes problems for the St. Robert Bellarmine papa haereticus ipso facto depositus position.

Yet, on the other hand, IMO one must at least adopt a position of doubt. Such doubt must necessarily arise before such an inquest by the Church could even begin. And, IMO, one must at least entertain some doubt about the pope's legitimacy in order to be in a position of chronic disobedience to and separation from the man claiming to be in pope ... in order to avoid schism.

It's why I have adopted what I call tongue-in-cheek a sededoubtist position. What's interesting is that I have been attacked by sedeplenists for being sedevacantist and by sedevacantists for being a sedeplenist.

Veritas in medio stat.

Ambrose · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:13:41 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

The Fourth Council of Constantinople-Canon #10:

As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices.

In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.[/u]

ADPM,

You must have been busy, digging up new reasons to prove that these heretics are popes. This canon does not prove anything, so keep digging.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:22:26 PM »

How does this prove that a manifest heretic can hold office in the Church?

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:24:34 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
The Fourth Council of Constantinople-Canon #10:

As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices.

In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.[/u]

ADPM,

You must have been busy, digging up new reasons to prove that these heretics are popes. This canon does not prove anything, so keep digging.

Rome (I mean Ambrose) has spoken. The matter is settled.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:27:20 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

How does this prove that a manifest heretic can hold office in the Church?

Are you alleging the crime of manifest heresy?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:28:22 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Quote from: Mithrandylan
How does this prove that a manifest heretic can hold office in the Church?

Are you alleging the crime of manifest heresy?

Alleging? If you get me a ladder, I'll get on the roof and accuse with a megaphone.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:35:57 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
Quote from: Mithrandylan
How does this prove that a manifest heretic can hold office in the Church?

Are you alleging the crime of manifest heresy?

Alleging? If you get me a ladder, I'll get on the roof and accuse with a megaphone.

You can accuse all you want. You can even say, "let him be anathema", but you cannot separate yourself from communion with he who has succeeded to the Chair of Peter. You cannot judge, punish or depose him.

roscoe · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:41:37 PM »

Forget about heresy( manifest or hidden). John 23- Francis 1 are not even legally elected and therefore by definition anti-popes. :reporter:

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:43:18 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Forget about heresy( manifest or hidden). John 23- Francis 1 are not legally elected and are by definition anti-popes. :reporter:

Says who?

roscoe · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:46:48 PM »

Says the white smoke. :detective:

roscoe · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Quote from: roscoe
Forget about heresy( manifest or hidden). John 23- Francis 1 are not legally elected and are by definition anti-popes. :reporter:

Says who?

Says the white smoke in OCT 1958 when the favorite of Pius XII was legally elected. :reporter: :detective:

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2013, 07:57:28 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
Quote from: roscoe
Forget about heresy( manifest or hidden). John 23- Francis 1 are not legally elected and are by definition anti-popes. :reporter:

Says who?

Says the white smoke in OCT 1958 when the favorite of Pius XII was legally elected. :reporter: :detective:

Says who?

roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2013, 08:01:44 PM »

Vatican radio :detective:

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2013, 08:04:41 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Vatican radio :detective:

Who spoke on Vatican radio and what specifically did he or she say?