Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Canon of Eighth Ecuмenical Council: no one to separate from his Patriarch ...  (Read 306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nishant Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2873
  • Reputation: +1894/-1751
  • Gender: Male
Canon of Eighth Ecuмenical Council: no one to separate from his Patriarch ...
« on: January 02, 2020, 11:46:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The Eighth Ecuмenical Council, the Fourth Council of Constantinople, declared that neither laymen nor Priests are to separate from their Patriarch (and the Pope is Patriarch of the Latin Church) before an examination or a declaration in a general Council, no matter what crime they think they know of; nor omit the Pope's name etc.

    From: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/const4.asp

    CANON 10

    Summary. No one is to leave without approval the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, even though the latter be guilty of a grave crime.

    Text. No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated.

    And also,

    CANON 21
    Summary. Secular authority shall not treat disrespectfully or seek to depose any patriarch; nor shall anyone direct against the pope of Rome any libelous and defamatory writing. Any secular power attempting to expel any patriarch, shall be anathematized.

    Text. No secular authority shall treat disrespectfully or seek to depose any of the five patriarchs; rather are they to be highly honored, especially the pope of Old Rome, then the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Nor shall anyone direct against the pope of Old Rome any libelous and defamatory writings, as was done recently by Photius and earlier by Dioscurus. If a secular authority shall attempt to expel the pope or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema. And if an ambiguity or controversy concerning the Holy Church of the Romans be brought before a general council, the question should be examined and disposed of with becoming respect and reverence, and no sentence should be boldly pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome .

    These Canons of the Ecuмenical Councils state that no one is to secede from the Pope without a declaration in a Council or at least an examination of a general Council; the two persons mentioned, Photius and Dioscorus, were both Patriarchs, authors of the Greek Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox schisms respectively, who both falsely accused the Pope of heresy; and both were wrong. How do sedevacantists answer this Council's decrees? 
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46095
    • Reputation: +27153/-5013
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canon of Eighth Ecuмenical Council: no one to separate from his Patriarch ...
    « Reply #1 on: January 02, 2020, 12:19:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • apples and oranges

    1) Patriarch is appointed by the Pope and can be removed by the Pope, whereas Popes receive their authority from God and cannot be removed formally by the Church.  So in the case of a Patriarch, there's a higher authority to which one can appeal.

    2) Patriarchs do not have infallible Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  We are not talking about the mere personal heresy of one Jorge Beroglio but about the integrity of the entire Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Only in impugning the legitimacy of a Pope can the Magisterium and Universal Discipline be rejected.

    3) This is referring to a simple crime (vs. loss of membership in the Church).  Loss of membership has different implications (vs. an ordinary crime) in that it renders the one who lost membership incapable of formally exercising the office.
    Logged

    Offline Praeter

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 192
    • Reputation: +122/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Canon of Eighth Ecuмenical Council: no one to separate from his Patriarch ...
    « Reply #2 on: January 05, 2020, 01:06:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 02, 2020, 12:19:15 PM
    apples and oranges

    1) Patriarch is appointed by the Pope and can be removed by the Pope, whereas Popes receive their authority from God and cannot be removed formally by the Church.  So in the case of a Patriarch, there's a higher authority to which one can appeal.

    None of that matters. The council decreed that no one is to separate from their Patriarch until a synod has investigated the matter and rendered a judgment. It is absurd to say that applies to all the Patriarchs except the Patriarch of the West, simply because the Pope "cannot be removed formally by the Church."  If he or any other member of the hierarchy remains in visibly possession of their office, and no judgment has been rendered by the Church, all their acts of jurisdiction remain valid, and their subjects are bound to remain in communion with him. 

    Quote
    2) Patriarchs do not have infallible Magisterium and Universal Discipline.

    Another statement that has nothing to do with what the council decreed. And I doubt you even know what disciplinary infallibility means.


    Quote
    3) This is referring to a simple crime (vs. loss of membership in the Church).   ... 

    No it's not. Read the history leading up to the council.  One of the reasons they were separating from their Patriarch is because he was accused of heresy - a "major crime" that separates a person from the Church.


    Quote
    Loss of membership has different implications (vs. an ordinary crime) in that it renders the one who lost membership incapable of formally exercising the office.

    Yet another failed attempt to justify rejecting what the council decreed. 

    There are differing opinions about what is required to be a true vs. apparent member of the Church.  Some believe the internal virtue of faith is necessary for true membership, and some believe mere external union with the Church suffices.  But both opinions agree that external union suffices for a bishop to "formally exercise" their office (which is a term you won't find used before by any pre-Vatican II theologian or canonist), since visible possession of the office and common error suffice for all their acts of jurisdiction to remain valid. 


    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »