This is all very interesting....but is this really the way one convinces another of the truth of Orthodoxy?
Brow beating just doesn't cut it for me. Perhaps you need to find a another path, other words -- kinder ones-- perhaps less harsh (I don't which ones)-- to show the true beauty of Orthodoxy.
Or have we become so righteous in our selves that we can't convey the beauty of Orthodoxy anymore?
Thanks everyone. Due to the help of some friends over at the York Forum, I have been able to see the folies of the sedevacantist position. We have had bad popes before.
So I will be returning to my old confessor and most likely cease participating at this forum.
Joe Zollars[/url]
Miriam,
There is a history with Joe across a span of a year or more, across a few different discussion fora. No one needs to convince Joe of the truth of Orthodoxy as he already knows it's healing effects if he is honest with himself. We just need to help him see that he is sick and needs his medicine, and that he needs to stop running away from God's will and trying to grab on to whatever will occupy his mind for a time ("the south," TradCatholicism, etc.) Joe is all filled up with contradiction right now, and no amount of love would reach him anyway--not even that of a spouse, I think. Joe will continue to struggle as he has because he refuses to follow the will of God, not because anyone here was too unloving (though we could all probably work on being a bit nicer).
seraphim reeves wrote:Anastasios,
You should be disbarred from the KofC! You are NOT Catholic, but a schismatic!
What does it matter, they're all schismatics?
Seraphim
It'a all about consistency. If you deny the Pope, you are not a Roman Catholic, obviously. I have a great deal of respect for the KofC and I think they don't deserve to be double-dealt like Joe is doing them.
Of course they are all schismatic from the Orthodox Church but the point I am making is one of consistency.
anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
AlaskanOrthodox wrote:Glory to Jesus Christ!
Here is a reference to the sedevacantist position regarding the canonical issues of a Pope-heretic. http://www.sedevacantist.org/offices.html
It however does not go into procedure.
According to a canon lawyer friend the current procedure for handling a Pope-heretic would be via a Tribunal set up by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Even though a heretic automatically loses his office as per his ascription to heresy, it must be confirmed by the CDF that he is a heretic. Once found to be a heretic he is subjected to the authority of the Tribunal and deposed and excommunicated.
Glory forever!
Dear Alexis,
Thanks for the link. It's already giving me a headache, and I will have to study it in detail later.
The problem I have with your canon lawyer friend's comments on how a heretical Pope would be handled (according to him, through a Tribunal of the CDF) is that the CDF, like all other Curial offices, has no authority of its own, but has its power delegated to it by the Pope. The CDF has authority so long as the Pope recognises it and authorises its work. Assuming that the CDF began a Tribunal to investigate whether or not a reigning Pope was a heretic, and thus to be deposed, what happens if the Pope ceases to recognise and delegate power to the CDF (and perhaps to the rest of the Curia)? It is then rendered impotent.
The moral of the story? "No man may judge the Roman Pontiff", I guess.