Realizing that inner reforms alone could save the Church, the King of France agreed to be neutral with reference to the proposal of the University of Paris that a general council be summoned. Whereupon a circular was issued by a group of cardinals, who met at Leghorn, summoning a general council at Pisa in the spring of 1409. This body regarded itself as being the official representative of the Church and hence authorized to sit in judgment upon a pope. Thus two popes were summoned before this august body. When they refused to appear, the council brought suit against them and declared them deposed. In their stead it elected Alexander V, who, for the sake of self-preservation, soon found ways and means of disposing of the council. However, since the two existing popes refused to abide by the council's decision, there were now three popes. Alexander died ten months after his election and was succeeded by the warlike John XXIII. Realizing their mistake, the University of Paris, Emperor Sigismund, and other proponents of reform now forced Pope John XXIII to summon a second reform council in southern Swabia on Lake Constance.
[snip]
The private life of Pope John XXIII would not bear too close inspection. Since he had been a former sea pirate, he did not welcome the council's probing into his former private life. John fled but was captured again, and, singularly enough, he and John Hus were put into the same dungeon. One wonders what subject this corrupt Pope and the saintly Prague professor may have found to discuss.
Friday, August 26, 2011
ANOTHER OLD TIME RELIGION POST
I like to post historical tidbits about what Christianity was really like when Church and State were almost the same entity and in LUTHER AND HIS TIMES, E. G. Schweibert has an interesting anecdote (pp. 25-6):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I used to debate with a Traditional Catholic the issue involving the controversy declaring papal infallibility at Vatican One. If you have read much church history you are aware that some Popes were declared heretics, or in error on doctrine-so infallibility, voted in by a bare majority at Vat One, was to say the least very questionable. But often the (retroactive) argument becomes the Councils themselves which ruled the heresy were themselves out of their depth because the Pope is always superior to a Council.
So a Pope which was ruled and (erroneously it turns out) believed to be a heretic for centuries was not really after all-even in cases where he admitted his heresy. Further complicating the matter are Popes which are recorded as saying he (and other Popes) could in the future commit error on matters of Faith and Doctrine.
Vatican One in effect ruled they were in error in saying this--but "absolved" because they didn't say it from the Chair and proclaim it as a truth. That previous Popes had overturned doctrines from the Chair of Popes previous to him didn't seem to matter.
Round and round.
The liberalization of Vat Two and other more recent trends of course reduced the kind of awe and respect given the Papacy by the average Catholic worldwide, so the matter of infallibility doesn't carry the same weight it once did.
I haven't verified this yet, but apparently there was no Papacy before 400 AD or so.
There was only a Bishop of Rome early on.
Records show that Bishop sometimes consulted Bishops of Eastern sees for final approval of doctrines and church discipline. They had more cachet during this period, owing to political power as well.
As the political power of Rome grew, so did the power, claimed anyway, of the Bishop of Rome, to the point he was claiming papal supremacy.
As the Eastern Bishops did not agree, desiring equal power, this finally led to the Eastern schism, unhealed to the present.
The best book on the subject is de Rosa's "Vicars of Christ." This priest-theologian-historian later became much more disillusioned with the Church than he even was at the time he wrote this.
Post a Comment