Cant the Pope resign?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned


The pope sets the rules.

Those have been the rules for a very long time. This pope did not set the rules. I think it has been that way for centuries.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned


So what?

Are you really a lawyer Ned. That was pretty inept.

This Pope is Jesus Christ representative on planet earth. If you do not like it to bad.

That was I was replying to.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by TheStinger


and the pope is of course infalliable

Only when speaking Ex-Cathedra. Which has happened twice. I am pretty sure the present rules weren't one of those occasions.

[Ned]

In politics, one does not have to agree with every position of a party or a candidate to belong to the party or vote for the candidate. Religion should be the same way.

With the pope reaching out to the Orthodox church, to Jews and to Muslims, he is in essence saying that we may have to rethink the basic Catholic doctrine of my "way or the highway." 100% belief and adherence to Caltholic doctrine, in this view, is not required for salvation.

This is a major shift in the Catholic Church. The pope's successor should continue in this direction, seeking common ground rather than confrontation.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Only when speaking Ex-Cathedra. Which has happened twice. I am pretty sure the present rules weren't one of those occasions.

Sorry for my ignorance but does this mean the pope is only infalliable when he choses to be, or just on certain topics?

[Ethelred]

This is a major shift in the Catholic Church. The pope's successor should continue in this direction, seeking common ground rather than confrontation.

That is not the same as allowing other religious organizations to have a say in the next Pope. That would be like Microsoft allowing Sun to vote on who succeeds Bill Gates should the the two ever try to get along but not merge. I don't see the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church merging anytime soon and for those guys soon is a century.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Those have been the rules for a very long time. This pope did not set the rules. I think it has been that way for centuries.

Still, the pope sets the rules. Nicolas II made the cardilnal electors in 1059. Pope John Paul recently changed the rules to require a secret balllot.

[Robert]

The Renaisance came first. The Dark Ages were over by Luther's time.

1560 the dark ages were over?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Sorry for my ignorance but does this mean the pope is only infalliable when he choses to be, or just on certain topics?

It means that the Pope must specify that he is speaking infallibly. If he doesn't do so later Popes have the opportunity to overturn a decision. The Catholic would be even more resistant to change if it was otherwise.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

Well apparently the Pope not only doesn't have to specify but never has, see the next link. However it still can't be changed but then again this guy has fuzzed it up enough that what is Ex-Cathedra can be open to debate since the Pope doesn't have to make it clear.

http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/magist02.htm

Much better but also has at least potential logical problems. Here is the one I spotted anyway.

(2) Dogmatic facts -- for example, the truth of certain historical facts, such as the validity of a papal election or of a particular general council; a declaration that a certain proposition is false, or that a certain work contains error. Canonizations could also go here.

If Canonizations are to be considered infallible then the Pope has failed to achieve that goal as a number of Saints are no longer saints at all. Saint Nicholas for one and Saint George for another have both been declared to be dubious at best. I get the impression from that one site that bets are being hedged but there is no way the author was going to admit it.

[Q Classic]

Sorry for my ignorance but does this mean the pope is only infalliable when he choses to be, or just on certain topics?

pretty much the rule of thumb here is that the pope is only infallible upon matters of faith.
now, a matter of faith could be anything, but that's how it's been explained for a while now.
btw: infallibility didn't become an official papal bull (doctrine) until the 19th century. before then, it was pretty much just assumed.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy


1560 the dark ages were over?

Yes. They end with the Renaisance or perhaps even before the Crusades which led to the Renaisance. By that time trade had begun again. States capable of protecting trade existed.

By 1500 there were colonies New World. The Dark Ages were literly a thing of the past and had been for quite a while.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
yeah, but see, the pop already has it so that only the cardinals vote.

some cardinals are archbishops, true, but that's only their acting position; their rank is actually higher.

for instance, cardinal francis acts as an archbishop of chicago, but his rank is a cardinal.

and all cardinals also have an "archbishop" position at a church in rome, which is pretty much just ceremonial.

Cardinals were orignailly the most important priests attached to the 28 large Roman provinces known in the late Empire as Dioceses. Bishops were the head of the church in a large community. Archbishops were the head of the church in a large metropolitan city, and typically had supervisory authority over bishops in territory administered by the Roman exarch.

Over time, the role of Cardinal changed as the Empire collapsed. They because the leading priests personally attached to the Pope. Today, as you said, one can be a Cardinal without being an Archbishop and one can be an Archbishop without being a Cardinal.

[Roland]

"... the 28 large Roman provinces known in the late Empire as Dioceses."

Quite fascinating. Can you give me a list of all 28 Dioceses of the late roman empire ?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned


The pope sets the rules.

Yes and no

Bishops have the full authority of Christ. But they act collegiately by tradition. An archbishop heads a conference of bishops. A cardinal is just a Bishop who gets to vote for the Pope. The Pope is considered "Primus inter Pares", first among equals.

Papal authority has waxed and waned over the millenia. Its pretty weak at the moment. The local bishop is actually the key man.

[Ned]

Later popes have declared early popes "wrong" on issues of dogma. If you would like, I can find examples.

Most popes do not decide these issues of faith. They allow them to be decided by a synod or EC, and then confirm them. The popes rarely refused to confirm cannons of the EC's. The only one's that they did not confirm, IIRC, are the one's that degraded the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, or later, the cannons that caused the Schism.