|
1 members (KostaC),
331
guests, and
109
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,629
Members6,175
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Constance was able to heal the breach only because the legitimate and reigning Pontiff gave it the authority to do so. Wasn't it you, LT, that mentioned once faith should never be separated from reason?  I don't follow here. The papacy was entirely unable to restore unity on its own volition, as 2-3 popes vied for power. Once again it was the Holy Spirit guiding the Council Fathers through their conciliar/synodal communion as successors to the Apostles, as He has done throughout history, maintaining and insuring unity and discerning the rightful successor to the Petrine Ministry. It was the triumph of the Council, not any single Pope (since there were several in opposition to each other), unity was restored. Actually the Popes had little to do with this council since Martin V (Otto Colona), who was not claiming to be one of the contested Popes at all, was elected later in the Council (1417). I also think unfortunately the unilateral action of several later Popes to attempt to ignore Sacrosancta, a legitimately promulgated Council document (1415), paved the way for abuses of power which in turn fueled the fire of those like Luther. In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . . Fortunately the current Pontiff has made some very insightful statements about the role of the Papacy and conciliar approach much more in line with the mind of the council fathers above. If any formal Anathema has been issued for Sacrosancta, which I understand has the seal of Pope Martin V himself (which he placed after his election), I would like to see it presented.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
I don't think that canon from Sacrosancta was approved by Martin V at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
It kind of bothers me that the whole point of this thread seems to be yet another chorus of "see how dumb/unenlightened/tyrannical/misguided/[fill-in-the-blank] those ultramontane Latin Catholics are?" ...
As others have already pointed out, the original quote under discussion was pulled out of an EWTN Q&A, and the writer is obviously concerned about the way too many people have tried to use their own interpretations of the Vatican II Council to defy the interpretation of the Church itself (as headed by the Pope).
It did not seem to be intended as a criticism of the Eastern Church in any way, shape or form - so why take it as one?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friends,
Ultimately, the real "meat" of the issue of separation between East and West isn't the Filioque et al.
It is really the age-old issue of papacy/conciliarism and the tension between the two.
Both sides have their lines drawn in the sand over it.
Both sides will have to come together and revisit/review some things before unity can be achieved.
Have a nice day.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
I don't think that canon from Sacrosancta was approved by Martin V at all. Neither Martin nor any other Pope anathemitized this canon. Historically if this would have been such a sore spot with him one of first actions he would have taken would have been to formally remove, abrogate, dismiss, whatever. There was simply no official disapproval. If it is wrong, and counter to the Catholic faith, Sacrosancta would have been abrogated. It simply never was. Martin V in fact attempted to convene local councils later (first at Pava) in compliance with Sacrosancta. A bit off-topic, but this is the same Martin V that was way ahead of the curve in opposing anti-Semitism in 1419: Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved, and whereas they have sought our protection: following in the footsteps of our predecessors We command that they be not molested in their synagogues; that their laws, rights and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force, constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear new badges, and that they be not hindered in their business relatiosn with Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
