Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@ziapueblo, that was because it was an implicit and latent authority that wasn’t explicitly defined until later.
 
Oh, that’s convenient, it just want defined yet. Did you read them even?

ZP
 
The first one I ran into where the two about St Leo. He’s replying to Erick Yaberra. Ericks a pretty smart guy. Knows his stuff.

ZP
 
@ziapueblo,

I finished reading the first article and it’s clear to me that Saint Celestine was giving his authority, auctoritas; to the condemnation of the heretic Nestorius. In effect, the Holy Father Saint Celestine approved what the Roman synod decided.

There’s nothing in it that contradicts papal supremacy.

I’ll read the rest now.
 
Last edited:
@ziapueblo,

Finished the second part. The papal legate, Philip; was pushing the council to accept the Holy Father’s letter and the council acquiesced. In fact, Saint Cyril accepted Rome’s authority.

From what I see in the article, the main defense the author of these two articles is basing himself on is hairsplitting on exact wording that ends up saying what papal apologists have been saying for years.

To be fair, however; I don’t see a knee jerk reaction of Rome barks and everyone cravenly falls in line.
 
Michael16 said:
. . . authority, auctoritas;
Click to expand...
From the article:

The term Pope St. Celestine uses for “authority” is “auctoritas” and for further information on it, read Prof. Pollman’s article on its usage in Latin Patristics found here. It has nothing to do with an juridical power (“potestas”) but in this case, aside from simply referring to prestige, it refers to the ability to confirm others in their exercises of power.

And:

Further, this decision to excommunicate Nestorius comes not from Pope St. Celestine alone but from the Roman Synod headed by him. ( St. Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius “Behold, therefore, how we, together with the holy synod which met in great Rome, presided over by the most holy and most reverend brother and fellow-minister, Celestine the Bishop, also testify by this third letter to you, and counsel you to abstain from these mischievous and distorted dogmas,” and “The holy synod of Rome and we all agreed on the epistle written to your Holiness from the Alexandrian Church as being right and blameless.

ZP
 
@ziapueblo,

This is a good example of what I’m seeing.

Auctoritas is authority. True Potestas means power, if I’m not mistaken; but doesn’t imply that papal will is toothless.

The Pope confirmed what the Roman synod did in his auctoritas as Pope.

It’s the assenting of the papal will to the decision of the synod and then the papal will ends up being accepted by the council at Ephesus.

I think I see that your guys’ basic point is that you believe that papal supremacy means that the Holy Father acts with autocratic power in complete disregard for, and ignoring; synods?

To use an analogy: You guys think papal supremacy means the Holy Father acts as an autocratic judge.

If that were the case, my friend; the Holy Father wouldn’t need the college of bishops at all and would simply rule by decree like some ecclesiastical Emperor or Hitler.

Totally not the case, dude.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
as the Successor of Saint Peter,
Click to expand...
The Orthodox don’t necessarily (ever?) cite that as the reason for the primacy that they recognize in Rome.

Usually, they recognize the role of Rome as having stemmed from the joint martyrdoms of SS Peter and Paul there.
Isaac14 said:
And yet the Pope appoints every single bishop around the world, presumably with no (name removed by moderator)ut from the diocese in question.
Click to expand...
The local country’s synod usually has rather substantial (name removed by moderator)ut and makes suggestions.

Rome had little to no (name removed by moderator)ut on the selection of bishops outside of Italy and the Americas prior to Vatican I.

And per Brest & Uhzrod, should not have any role in the EC churches, yet . . .
 
@ziapueblo,

I finished reading the article on Pope Saint Leo’s Tome.

Again, I see no contradiction with papal supremacy and really the author’s objections are really a moot point as the Tome was accord with prior council canons; not the bishops as the author claims.

Now, the other aspect of the Tome question is that the bishops at Chalcedon accepted the Tome because it already reflected orthodox Christology. There was nothing to object over and thus giving the synod a reason to complain.

In addition, the Holy Father wasn’t being an autocrat; as the council had time to examine the Tome prior to, and during; the council.

I really don’t see how the author could use the Tome at Chalcedon as an illustration against papal supremacy.

In fact, I think the author himself is seeing infallible ex cathedra statements to refute when it wasn’t even there. Infallible ex cathedra statements weren’t codified until 1870.

ZP, it’s really been a pleasure talking with you today and examining the articles you posted. As I’ve said before here, and to Father in Confession; you guys talk my language. 😁
 
Last edited:
Isaac14 said:
Yet according to Apostolic Canon 34 , the first among the bishops may do nothing without the consent of all. This is why, in the Orthodox Church, the primate has duties and responsibilities his brother diocesan bishops don’t, they are not subject to him in a subordinate way.
Click to expand...
Here is that Canon:

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

So that with regard to the laity, he functions as despotos, but with regard to his Synodia of Bishops, unanimity of consent is required…

geo
 
@George720,

Interesting point.

So, you guys are scared that papal supremacy and infallibility means that the Holy Father acts as an autocrat without any regard for his bishops?
 
Michael16 said:
ZP, it’s really been a pleasure talking with you today and examining the articles you posted. As I’ve said before here, and to Father in Confession; you guys talk my language. 😁
Click to expand...
:+1:t3: I enjoy our discussions.
Michael16 said:
So, you guys are scared that papal supremacy and infallibility means that the Holy Father acts as an autocrat without any regard for his bishops?
Click to expand...
According to the CCC 882

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

The Pope of Rome has “full, supreme, and universal power . . . a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top