Examining Orthodox Theology

[GaryTaylor]

I’d like to think that I can admit my own faults sometimes…

Thats your admission? OK if thats as good as it gets accepted. I’m easy to get along with.

No, you said one should go to an EC parish instead of going to an EO when one is considering the EO. And I said that is not a good idea coming from someone who is neither EC nor EO…

And I disagree. Eastern Catholic’s can go to a Latin Rite Catholic Church, receive communion and not be in fear of anything, and visa versa. Would you like to see this in print?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CGQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fericsammons.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F07%2F23%2Fdivision-between-latin-and-eastern-catholics%2F&ei=zuoXUIS_CKO06wH9uIGwBg&usg=AFQjCNGepmS9A_PQ9MyH0H6QJtWYpeawag&sig2=VyZbhvf0vskuHu13jHWTqg

As to what I would do thats a complete different story.

This reminded me of the time I was contemplating moving to Canada and people I know from the US are telling me that I should just go to the US instead. To them, Canada and the US is the same thing. But it is not. The same with the EC and EO. Not just because there is similarity in Liturgy and some traditions, doesn’t mean they are completely the same, with one being in communion with the Pope. There is more to both sides than just communion with the Pope. For people who think that the issue is merely being communion with the Pope, well, they have no clue what the issue really is…

Thanks for sharing, whats this have to do with the conversation, though I agree?

No offense but you are the one who missed it. I explained it a couple of posts back and when you replied “show me” the first time, you even deleted the part where I explained. Back read a bit and read everything I typed in. I took my time to type it in, at least grant me the courtesy of reading it. You don’t have to accept or agree to what I type in, just read it and you can respond with something better than “show me” when I already have…

I did read this entire thread. I didn’t miss anything. And obviously I disagree with many things you said since you cannot prove these statements as fact, they are but an opinion. Talk is what it is.

You said I do not know the situation of every Orthodox parish…

Do you? You certainly don’t know the Latin Rite situation by your conversation here.

And are you stereotyping me as a Canadian who should just be politely backing out of conversations? First, I’m not born nor raised in Canada. Second, thinking Canadians are that way shows a lack of knowledge about Canadians…

Are you alright, I NEVER mentioned Canada or stereo typed you, and have no idea what in the world you are rambling about here. Listen to me, there are only so many pages on this thread, and so many posts you and I crossed paths. Not hard to follow the conversation.

True enough Christ cannot be separated from His Church. But the Church is not just Christ, the believers have to be there. The bond of Christ to His Church is like a man to his wife. A man cannot marry himself or cannot be in a marriage alone.

You first sentence is correct. You just should have stopped typing after BUT. That only means you agree now with an explaination.

Consider yourself not refuting me at all. I said I am open to be refuted by evidence, which you did not provide any. Fancy play on semantics is not evidence…

Are you even serious Wow, heres your evidence and you are REFUTED! Semantics? everything is semantics with you. Apparently the RCC you love to find fault with you know very little about.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therealpresence.org%2Feucharst%2Fpea%2Fa2.html&ei=yv0XUKRW6pnpAc2hgFg&usg=AFQjCNH6DgILoopBbkWW6m5-pFcuE3ndzA&sig2=GNSxvAS_Z6NNI2X88w8aZQ

BTW the title of the link is “Worship outside of the Mass”

Theres your evidence. You can stay busy with the Church all day everyday aside from just the Mass. So now perhaps your area is different or you don’t know? That is in your area of North America?

No, I was not speaking about just Mass. I the problem in North America is that the Liturgical experience begins and ends with Mass. Not that the Mass is bad nor is it insufficient. But there has always been a variety of Liturgical services available to give “flavor” to the spiritual experience of the people. Because we are afflicted with sin we need the diversity in spiritual experience to wake our physical selves up to the spiritual realities…

This is your opinion, others obviously feel different such as myself. If you didn’t even know what Adoration was how can you even make such a statement?

I mean, even monks in communities do more than just Mass all day…

Again your downplaying the importance of Daily Mass to build your own lacking postion. And falsely assuming there is nothing but the Mass. What one does the rest of the day in relation to the Lord has nothing to do with Daily Mass.

No, I did not say that. I said it “accomplishes” nothing. Big difference. To accomplish something means to complete something. Sacraments aid us in a very long process (perhaps for some it may indeed be very short). To say it “accomplishes” sort of gives the impression that there are spiritual guarantees such as entering heaven

Post 65 and addressed below. Are you OK

No, you owe me an apology. This is what I said:.

What did you say above Nothing

Nowhere did I said it does “nothing by itself”. Look up my original reply, I said it “It doesn’t accomplish something.” I did NOT say it “does nothing by itself”. In fact, I didn’t even use the word “nothing” anywhere! Huge difference, and you are putting words into my mouth…

You said exactly “It doesn’t accomplish something by itself” and this is incorrect. Post 65 if you would like re-read. Then you defined “accomplish” as complete, this is incorrect usage of the word in this case. If I accomplish a days work on my car but didn’t complete the work I still accomplished something. So yes I disagree with the English you insist on twisting through backpedaling.

I do not have a problem with it. I just said that the spiritual experience is dry in North America because all you can attend is Mass. There’s nothing wrong with that, but its dry because there’s nothing else but that.

Your limiting your experience to only what you know and in your area, and apparently from this thread what you do not know about the Latin Rite Catholic Church.

And if you consider daily mass dry then that is your opinion period, and a new twist in this thread. I completely disagree with you.

 

[Cider]

Wait a minute, why did this thread devolve into the Papacy again? We already have another thread for that.

Because apparently many Catholics are unable to discuss Orthodox theology ( which was supposed to be the topic of this thread) without discussing the Papacy. It always comes down to submission to Rome in these discussions. Too bad since it ignores all the other differences between the two.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because apparently many Catholics are unable to discuss Orthodox theology ( which was supposed to be the topic of this thread) without discussing the Papacy. It always comes down to submission to Rome in these discussions. Too bad since it ignores all the other differences between the two.

Right and it started the twist on page TWO.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Because apparently many Catholics are unable to discuss Orthodox theology ( which was supposed to be the topic of this thread) without discussing the Papacy. It always comes down to submission to Rome in these discussions. Too bad since it ignores all the other differences between the two.

… and the similarities, as well!

 

[Cavaradossi]

because apparently many catholics are unable to discuss orthodox theology ( which was supposed to be the topic of this thread) without discussing the papacy. It always comes down to submission to rome in these discussions. Too bad since it ignores all the other differences between the two.

Πρόσχωμεν. Let us be attentive.

 

[dvdjs]

I guess where the discussion truly breaks down and becomes debate is when considering (i) changes made in the “language of record” (Greek or Latin) to a base text or (ii) where translation yields a potentially erroneous (perhaps unintended) meaning, either actively or with the passage of time.

One generally would not argue that the “Filioque” was simply wordsmithing …

So what is a base text? The Eastern bishops in Constanople (ECII) did not consider the creed of Nicea as immutable - they changed it. They some things that were missing, as far as they were concerned, from Nicea, and they they dropped “God from God” among other things.

I think the question of whether the filioque is heretical is an OK question. (That question was answered by Maximus the Confessor.)
I think the question od whether the addition was in some sense “illegal”, is just silly.

 

[dvdjs]

Now what are you talking about?

Just trying to stop the sands from shifting and getting back to the actual question I asked, piques by the actual comment that you made.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think the question of whether the filioque is heretical is an OK question. (That question was answered by Maximus the Confessor.)

I think the question [of] whether the addition was in some sense “illegal”, is just silly.

So, the Orthodox have no case against the Filioque, in your view?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t see this being an issue in the final analysis. My personal opinion on this is we should go back to the formula agree’d upon at the Council.

I don’t believe the Western thought on this should be discarded, but for the sake of the laity I’m convinced the East presents a simple explaination which keeps order and reduce’s confusion.

That said after in depth research East and West they are stating one of the same theology. But look at the confusion for those who have no desire to research this for weeks. To these Souls it immediately appears to cause a division and for no good reason.

So to me its not a right or wrong, its a “Lets do whats best for the Church”.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not too sure about that:

As Dzeremi points out, this does not constitute a claim to universal jurisdiction.

 

[Hesychios]

My brother…I beg your pardon? Imposed? Where are sources confirming such a statement, the Church of Rome “imposed” it on the Eastern Rites? Believing that there can be only one head is not unique to Rome alone because Jesus own faith and culture had one head figure called a king. When did Jesus complain about it? In Heaven there is one head figure-God. I am curious to know where the belief of a “democracy” was establised by Christ?

The Papacy was imposed on the western churches, and it was later imposed upon the eastern churches which have been taken over by Rome.

The modern method of imposition appears to be by codifying the canons, which only Rome is presently allowed to do. Eastern churches are required to adopt the CCEO, which is not of their own making and does not derive from the seven councils nor local eastern councils.

In modern times, the Papacy also has the advantage of controling diaspora communities, by unilaterally restricting the eastern churches to a ‘home territory’. This gives the Pope the sole power to erect dioceses and name bishops for them.

As the situation continues to evolve and more eastern Catholics flee the Middle east, one can expect that the Pope will directly name more and more bishops to the synods of those ancient and venerable churches, and the grip on them will grow even tighter.

Of course, for Ultramontanists, this will be seen as a good thing.

 

[Hesychios]

No, it’s not. Local bishops and national bishop’s conferences are not simply ‘delegated’ their authority by the pope.

I was referring to the congregations and the dicasteries of the Papal curia.

As for the Vatican congregations, it’s disingenuous to describe these congregations as ‘running’ the church either. You seem uninterested in comprehending the difference between power and headship, perhaps because it undercuts your position rather badly.

Clearly we have differences, but that’s hardly justification to exagerrate, distort or purposely obfuscate the situation .

I did not make a personal attack upon you, I see no reason for you to resort to this.

In any case, you avoid the subject with this tirade.

If you want to discuss the canons which govern the duties of the curia, and which should give us an indication of the source of their authority, we can do this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see this from the aspect of Temporal rule also. For example as Constantine established Constantinople, so to was established an authority in the Christian/Roman empire with empasis on the culture also. Here we see a Kingdom which stood for a very long time till it was finally surrounded by Islam and the converted Turks and fell. Course we also see it re-emerge in that the will of God is also very real in the sense of the Spirtual aspect aside from temporal rule.

Theres much to think about from the two perspectives. I follow your thinking as to todays situation.

However I also believe that Christianity in general must come together in the understanding and agreement as to prevail with any amount of success in the temporal realm. So a chain of command must be properly established as it will no doubt effect the temporal rule as it has in the past. This also becomes complex in that the Church’s seem to have embraced the theory of resist no evil. Or to better define to resist it only by its power of example in how we live. This leaves Christianity at the risk of failure and places the responsibilty squarely on Gods will without Christianity confronting the strident movenment of Islam and the other evils of the world by being united in this stance and understanding

United we stand divided we fall, and if we do not stand together then surely we will lose this battle and Apostolic See’s are under severe attack. Once again united we have the power to bring Christianity to the proper understanding and interaction of society and temporal rule. This is how we grew and claimed a major impact on civil man, and society.

I see the USA as imperative today. First we need to get this country back to its Christian roots not some idea that we can rationalize what the USA deems different evil’s OK through law, then we further place ourselves at risk in losing a major land in Christianity from some form of compromised socialism/relativism.

In other words we can either start the battle just as we see with the Roman Empire from basically scratch, or we can we address these issue’s through unity of like thinking.

I say lets get back to common bonds so we can help stop the bloodshed in the middle-east and re-establish early christian communites. We cannot accomplish this with a we’re right your wrong attitude. This leaves very limited growth and converstion, in particular on a temporal level, and leaves all of us at some point at risk. Its a systematic destruction of Christianity by evil.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Please explain to us what formal teaching is not true.

He won’t be able to. There is no formal teaching of Holy Orthodoxy that is untrue from the Catholic perspective.

Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων. Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων· φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. Τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός. Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν. **Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.**Ἀμήν

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.
Amen.

It is true that Orthodox do not teach that there is any one single human person who is ‘head’ of the church. This is a teaching unique to Roman Catholicism and no other Apostolic church.

The Orthodox belief is that Christ is head of the church, and that is what is taught.

Of what Orthodox do teach, what is not true?

Not to belittle this important difference between our churches, but do remember that Catholic teaching also states that Christ is head of the Church.

Theology itself is understood differently. Theology is not something one learns through intellectual study so much as experientially through the ascetic life. The true theologians are those illumined by the Holy Spirit and who are experiencing theosis (being divinized by grace) .

There are Orthodox "theologians " according to the Western understanding of educated professionals, and these oftentimes are respected bishops and monks, but Orthodox theology also possesses a strong Patristic and monastic character which is in my view less common in Roman Catholic theology.

Yes, I admire your church very much for this perspective. I have no doubt that purely academically driven theology is, at best, the lowest and least efficacious form of the discipline.

The Orthodox are Catholic.

To be honest, Constantine, I disagree. That sounds like a form of branch theory…

Recall the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which clarifies and asserts that Christ’s Church on earth, as organized and constituted as a visible society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is pretty clearly defined as that communion of churches in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Of course, it goes on to state quite unambiguously that many elements of truth and sanctification are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, and this is certainly more true of the Orthodox Churches than of any other group. But even with their status - from our point of view - of being true particular churches who have preserved the orthodox and apostolic faith, and who have all seven Holy Sacraments, I still don’t think we can say they’re considered by our Church to be a communion in which the Catholic Church visibly subsists. As I said, that would be branch theory.

If you want, I can probably dig up the several CDF clarifications issued about this precise matter.

That unfortunately is what is so confusing to me. We are told that we are only in schism, and not in heresy, but wouldn’t the two be virtually the same thing after the First Vatican Council, since being out of communion with the bishop of Rome is tantamount to rejecting his supremacy over all other churches?

Not until Orthodox Christianity formally - say, in a universal synod - pronounces that no bishop can exercise any kind of universal authority.

Lest your churches’ status as being in schism but not heresy be questioned as some kind of fluffy post-Vatican II platitude, please see the old Catholic encyclopedia from the early twentieth century, which distinguishes between “schismatic” eastern churches (of course, we do not regard individual Orthodox believers as “schismatics” anymore) and “heretical” ones (i.e. the non-Chalcedonians, who, of course, are no longer considered to be monophysite heretics by the Catholic Church).

No, it’s not. Local bishops and national bishop’s conferences are not simply ‘delegated’ their authority by the pope.

That is true. The requirement for papal confirmation of certain things does not in any way indicate that their authority is delegated by the papacy.

You seem uninterested in comprehending the difference between power and headship, perhaps because it undercuts your position rather badly.

I think we should be a bit nicer to Hesychios, whom I generally find eminently reasonable (though of course I disagree with him!).

But I agree with you: we must make that distinction between power and headship.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The Orthodox Churches in union with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Your language is very Latin still, I see

I have a question, though. Why not examine the Oriental Orthodox Church as well? I think you should examine it too. The Oriental Orthodox make the same claims as does the Eastern Orthodox, so a fair hearing is in order here.

Because apparently many Catholics are unable to discuss Orthodox theology ( which was supposed to be the topic of this thread) without discussing the Papacy. It always comes down to submission to Rome in these discussions. Too bad since it ignores all the other differences between the two.

Ἀκούομεν. Pick a topic.

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

Forgive me for not reading all the posts (11 pages?).

My understanding is this: The Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession and valid sacraments. What they don’t have is apostolic authority, which resides only in the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, and the bishops teaching in union with him. No Orthodox church can convene a world-wide ecumenical council, only the Pope can do so. Also, no individual Orthodox church can decide a matter of doctrine for the whole Christian church; that authority also rests only with the Holy Father.

Another item: The EO Churches believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not from the Father AND the Son. When you look into the Catholic theology of the Trinity that comes to us from Augustine and Aquinas, the EO position becomes untenable, and creates an imperfect dynamic. The EO really have two Sons, rather than a Son generated by the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son. A basic explanation of the Catholic position can be found in (I think this is it) Frank Sheed’s book “Theology for Beginners.” Once you have a grasp of Catholic Trinitarian theology, the EO position doesn’t make sense.

In terms of turning around the terrible condition of the secular world today, the EO are wonderful allies. What we have in common is greater than what divides us. The EO have also resisted a lot of the trendy abuses that currently plague Catholic liturgy, which might be why you are attracted to them.

May God guide you in your search… - Rob in Oregon

 

[ConstantineTG]

Forgive me for not reading all the posts (11 pages?).

My understanding is this: The Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession and valid sacraments.

What they don’t have is apostolic authority

That is not true, all bishops are apostolic successors.

, which resides only in the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, and the bishops teaching in union with him.

You are talking about Petrine Primacy here, not Apostolic Succession.

No Orthodox church can convene a world-wide ecumenical council, only the Pope can do so.

Actually as history would prove it, only an Emperor can do so.

Also, no individual Orthodox church can decide a matter of doctrine for the whole Christian church; that authority also rests only with the Holy Father.

Wrong again. Only Jesus decides what is doctrine. The Apostles taught us what is doctrine. We can neither add, remove or change anything.

Another item: The EO Churches believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not from the Father AND the Son. When you look into the Catholic theology of the Trinity that comes to us from Augustine and Aquinas, the EO position becomes untenable, and creates an imperfect dynamic. The EO really have two Sons, rather than a Son generated by the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son. A basic explanation of the Catholic position can be found in (I think this is it) Frank Sheed’s book “Theology for Beginners.” Once you have a grasp of Catholic Trinitarian theology, the EO position doesn’t make sense.

How about learning about the Eastern understanding of it first so that it will make sense? And before you go on, know that the Filioque is not used in 22 of the 23 Catholic Churches (subject to Latinization).

In terms of turning around the terrible condition of the secular world today, the EO are wonderful allies. What we have in common is greater than what divides us. The EO have also resisted a lot of the trendy abuses that currently plague Catholic liturgy, which might be why you are attracted to them.

There is more to the Orthodox than a beautiful Liturgy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

My understanding is this: The Eastern Orthodox churches have apostolic succession and valid sacraments. What they don’t have is apostolic authority, which resides only in the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, and the bishops teaching in union with him. No Orthodox church can convene a world-wide ecumenical council, only the Pope can do so. Also, no individual Orthodox church can decide a matter of doctrine for the whole Christian church; that authority also rests only with the Holy Father.

From your perspective, perhaps.

Another item: The EO Churches believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not from the Father AND the Son. When you look into the Catholic theology of the Trinity that comes to us from Augustine and Aquinas, the EO position becomes untenable, and creates an imperfect dynamic. The EO really have two Sons, rather than a Son generated by the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son. A basic explanation of the Catholic position can be found in (I think this is it) Frank Sheed’s book “Theology for Beginners.” Once you have a grasp of Catholic Trinitarian theology, the EO position doesn’t make sense.

That only holds true if one believes that hypostatic properties are the means by which things are differentiated, rather than serving as characteristics which allow us to distinguish between distinct things. However, even if that premise is admitted, the argument is still inadequate because a difference between the principle of the Spirit and the principle of the Son need not be admitted in order for the persons to be distinct, only that Begetting and Procession are two different modes of origin, a distinction which does not require the principle of each person to be different.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

When you look into the Catholic theology of the Trinity that comes to us from Augustine and Aquinas, the EO position becomes untenable

Aquinas almost exclusively, when he quoted a Church Father, quoted “the” Theologian, that is St. Augustine. Aquinas often just repeats Augustine.

 

[cmforte]

Quote:
Originally Posted by **ConstantineTG **

Wait a minute, why did this thread devolve into the Papacy again? We already have another thread for that.

Because apparently many Catholics are unable to discuss Orthodox theology ( which was supposed to be the topic of this thread) without discussing the Papacy. It always comes down to submission to Rome in these discussions. Too bad since it ignores all the other differences between the two.

For many it is beause when ever one debates theology, for Catholics it always comes down to one thing: Authority. Who has the authority to define a dogma or teaching? And where do they get that authority from?Any time we compare and contrast theology, whether with our Orthodox brethren or Protestant ones, it will and does always come to that. So it’s not so much “submission to Rome,” at least in a proud and bullying way, but that we believe only the successor to Peter, who just coincidentally happens to be the Bishop of Rome, and those Apostolic successors (Bishops) in communion with him, has that authority.

Though I am veering toward the Orthodox position of authority vested in ecumenical synods and councils, than in just one Bishop. And even then, it is my understanding that the Orthodox position is that even synods and councils don’t have ultimate authority or supremacy, that any Bishop can disagree with them, since each Bishop/Patriarch has primacy over his own patriarchate as a successor to an Apostle. I don’t know if I like that, as I think the Christian faith should always have an outward sign of unity.

-Chris