There are lots of miracles in the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Faith based on miracles alone is not strong. Remember Christ’s words, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign”(Matthew 12:39). As Christians, giving thanks for miracles, when they occur as manifestations of God’s power, we should base our faith on Christ as Peter did.
This is, of course, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your logic is that if the approval of the pope was needed for the council to have authority, then they could not have deposed the pope. Therefore because they did not depose the pope, you conclude that the pope was needed for an ecumenical council to have authority. This reasoning fails of course, because even if your conditional statement is true, it does not follow that because the antecedent is true the consequent must be true.
Strawman argument. You misrepresent my argument to be that Vigilius was anathematized by name. I, of course, never argued that, but argued that the language of the anathema and the treatment of Vigilius and his party of bishops after the council suggests that he was implicitly anathematized.
Another strawman, with an ad hominem argument added into the mix. The argument always was over Vigilius’ erroneous position on the three chapters in their entirety, not just Theodore of Mopsuestia.You are confusing yourself. We were talking about Theodore of Mopsuestia, not the letter of ibas.
No true Scotsman. You contend that because Vigilius’ defense was not heavily theological, it therefore was not a real defense.
Same fallacy as above. You argue that because Vigilius was held captive in Constantinople for several years that his banishment to an island was therefore not a real banishment. This is of course false, because the common understanding of banishment entails being sent by on somebody’s authority outside of a certain geographical area.“Banish” him from where? Rome. They already forcibly took him from his See. Yet he was STILL regarded as the bishop of Rome. The so-called banishment was effectively INeffective as a deposition.
Here we see a combination of the strawman fallacy with the fallacy of moving the goalposts. You misdirect the debate by claiming my argument is that they explicitly anathematized Vigilius. Secondly, when provided with evidence that the anathema was in fact directed against Vigilius and his bishops, you demand more evidence (specifically evidence which you know does not exist).
You have a faulty understanding of the argument being made. The idea that many have rebelled against the papacy does not indicate that the papacy does not have authority, but only that it was not universally believed. Since, however, much emphasis is placed on the faith of the apostles once delivered, the non-universal nature of submission to the papacy indicates that it may not be part of that faith once delivered.
Both the Roman Church and the rest of the Church used to be one single Catholic Church.
This is very puzzling to me. Why do you blame the papacy for something which is under the purview of local bishops or episcopal conferences/synods?You’ll note that the “traditional liturgy” is on the rise and has been fully embraced by our present Holy Father. He has, in fact, maintained that the Tridentine mass was never canonically abrogated and that those who claimed that it was were misinterpreting Pope Paul VI’s promulgation of the 1970 missal. He, as the living guardian of the Church’s law, is in a much better position to interpret what was or wasn’t forbidden than you are. Did abuses happen? Yes. Were millions deprived of traditional liturgy? Yes. But I have no reason to believe that this was the intention of our past popes, and certainly our current pope is doing his best to bring about the “reform of the reform” (in his own words). When I went to Rome in 2009, I had the great honor of assisting at several papal masses. These were among the most beautiful, reverent, traditional, and solemn liturgies I have ever been to - I was totally blown away - and I am, of course, including the various Tridentine masses and Byzantine divine liturgies that I have been to. Gorgeous polyphony was employed and the Holy Father chanted the masses in Latin (with the readings/Gospel proclaimed in the vernacular Italian). Those who received Our Lord from the Holy Father did so kneeling and on the tongue, in the traditional manner. Our Holy Father is leading by example. Contrary to popular opinion, he is not a dictator nor an absolute monarch - each bshop must follow the example of their elder brother (whose vocation it is to “confirm the brethren”) and bring the liturgy of his particular church into harmony with sacred tradition. The Ordinary Form of the Mass (the so called “Novus Ordo” of Pope Paul VI) can be extremely beautiful when celebrated correctly as the Council Fathers intended. At my own cathedral in Vancouver, Canada, the regular Sunday mass includes a stunning traditional polyphonic schola/choir, chant (in the vernacular or Latin depending on the celebrant and the occasion), incense, and the option to receive Holy Communion kneeling at the altar rail (which a very large percentage of the faithful elect to do). Many other parishes throughout the archdiocese have similarly beautiful, reverent, traditional liturgies. There is a general trend across the Latin Church to undo the damages of the abuses that were forced upon us not by Rome but by heretics and dissenters in our ranks. Has this not happened many times throughout the history of the Church? Read medieval history - there are many accounts of village priests who mumbled through Latin they barely understood, celebrating the holy mass in a most undignified and careless manner…I would bet a $1000 I could find similar accounts in the East. Don’t idealize Church history - East or West - the Church herself is perfect, but her members are not. The Church’s liturgy, which is the prayer of Christ Himself through His mystical body the Church, is pristine, but its execution by sinful human beings is sometimes lacking. Was there not a time when the majority of bishops were Arian heretics? Did this mean that the Church had fallen? Of course not - even when the majority of bishops, priests, and faithful fall short of the mark, we know that Our Lord will sustain His Church and bring her back on track - She is dependent not upon the holiness of her individual members (including the bishops and pope!) but of Christ himself. The fact that the Holy Father is working to return the liturgy of the Latin Church to its proper dignity, to me, disproves your point. Finally, you might argue that the Ordinary Form, when celebrated properly as it is in Rome or in my own cathedral, is still a drastic departure from the Tridentine Mass. To this I offer a few points:
No, it was Saint Peter who ultimately determined all jurisdiction. Ultimately there is no Church that does not receive its jurisdiction from Rome/Saint Peter. It is his perogative alone to determine, grant or alter jurisdiction. No Bishop can, for example, randomly grant himself jurisdiction where he does not already have it, especially if he were to trespass upon another bishop’s jurisdiction. The Apostles recognized Saint Peter as their leader.
Wow.
we have so many beliefs in common.Catholics are orthodox, are they not?
Amen!
I think your post is relevant, we sometimes get so wrapped up in trying to be “right” that we forget the most basic Christian moralsI guess it has no relevance for this post. Sorry. It is just all the bickering and lack of recognizing other Christians as brothers and sisters seems to be a problem in evangelizing the world. I’ve had a problem with this and I need prayer, lots of it!!
An Ecumenical Council also has that prerogative. In fact, according to V1, the Ecumenical Council is more normative for the Church than the exercise of the personal papal prerogatives. Also, patriarchs have these prerogatives within their traditional Patriarchal territory.
He’s actually more like a godfather, who steps in if the normal father is absent in his spiritual duties. The Pope does not replace the fatherhood of any local bishop for his local flock.
So does every bishop.
What of it? It’s a matter of respect more than anything else, and is not supposed to imply jurisdictional submission. Popes more often than not refer to other bishops as their “brothers,” not their “sons.”
Actually, all bishops (which includes the Pope) owe obedience to Sacred Tradition first and foremost. In fact, the Pope, more than any other bishop, owes obedience to Sacred Tradition. Like any other bishop, only when he is acting in that capacity do Catholics owe him filial obedience.
He reflects that reality more than any other bishop, but it is the Eucharist that actually MAKES the Church one spiritual Chrisitan family on earth.
Not according to Orthodox belief (similar to how according to Catholic belief, Orthodox aren’t catholic).my prayer is that ALL orthodox Christians reunite
