Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josie_L]

Then why aren’t Jews Catholic?

At the very least, why don’t Jews have something like a Pope?

Appealing to the Jews makes no sense. The Jews are living proof that a religious tradition can function perfectly well without the kind of centralized authority that you declare to be just “common sense.”

Edwin

Wasn’t Caiaphas a high priest and therefore chairman of the Sanhedrin? Moreover, aren’t we talking about the keys in conjunction with the O.T., i.e., the keys referenced in the O.T. concerning the steward who was second in command in the Davidic kingdom with the keys given to Peter by the Son of David, Jesus Christ?

Edit: There are many Jews who became/become Catholic, in fact, there’s a site that you might want to look over: hebrewcatholic.org/

Note: If you wish to know more about the keys and the kingdom, please read Stanley Jaki’s “Keys of the Kingdom” (I believe even Martin Luther referenced the keys in Matthew 16:18 with Isaiah 22:22).

 

[josie_L]

Because the way that authority has been defined since the eleventh century is not justified by Tradition.

You don’t need to be a historian to see that something is badly wrong with the way the Papacy functions in the modern world. And the more your apologists try to deny this, the more jarring becomes the contrast between the world of Catholic apologists and the real world.

You keep talking about Tradition in a way that implies that you know what it is, i.e., so can you support the Orthodox view via Tradition and Scripture? And if you can can you delineate it for me?

God bless

 

[Contarini]

Wasn’t Caiaphas a high priest and therefore chairman of the Sanhedrin?

Yes. And yet, no Jew ever suggested he was infallible. In fact, Jews of Jesus’ day seem to have had a rather low opinion of the priests, by and large!

Moreover, aren’t we talking about the keys in conjunction with the O.T., i.e., the keys referenced in the O.T. concerning the steward who was second in command in the Davidic kingdom with the keys given to Peter by the Son of David, Jesus Christ?

Yes, but the point is that Jews generally don’t have much truck with absolute authority. The OT monarchs don’t seem to have had absolute authority. You take a metaphor and then read into it what you need.

Edit: There are many Jews who became/become Catholic

True. And others who became evangelical Protestants. One such came and spoke at my university last spring, and declared that the Catholic view of the Eucharist made no sense to a Jew–Jews understand that the Passover is just a memorial, and so is the Eucharist.

Should I believe him?

Jews who become Christians are suspiciously prone to use their authority as Jews (or ex-Jews, by some people’s reckoning) to support whichever version of Christianity they have chosen to embrace.

Meanwhile, most Jews shake their heads and wonder what we are all smoking, and hope that we don’t revert to type and try to kill them.

Note: If you wish to know more about the keys and the kingdom, please read Stanley Jaki’s “Keys of the Kingdom” ).

Fr. Jaki (may he rest in peace) is always worth reading. Thanks for the recommendation. Where might I find this?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You keep talking about Tradition in a way that implies that you know what it is, i.e., so can you support the Orthodox view via Tradition and Scripture?

Try the selections by George Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky found as chaps. 5-7 of Daniel Clendenin’s Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (Baker, 2003).

This view is not too far different from that found in Vatican II’s Dei Verbum. The main difference (such as it is) is that the Catholic Church is more likely to define Tradition over against Scripture, while the Orthodox are more likely to subsume Tradition into Scripture. Florovsky, and Lossky, however, don’t entirely do this latter.

I understand that not all tradition is Tradition. But if you define Tradition in such a way that it is whatever your ecclesiastical authorities say it is, then it has become meaningless. Discussion on these forums has frequently shown me that many Catholics really don’t care about what the Fathers said or what the early Church looked like. You quote the Fathers selectively for your purposes, but when appeal is made to any aspect of early Christianity that doesn’t suit you, you sneer at the Church’s “infancy” and brandish the magic word “development.”

As a historian, I have no use for any Tradition that ignores tradition. Just as I have no use for forms of apologetics so anxious to defend the Truth that they have lost interest in the truth.

Here’s the bottom line for me. When you have two churches both appealing to Tradition, and one of them has changed quite radically since they split and the other hasn’t, then yes, I’m going to trust the one that has changed less to tell me which bits of the tradition are really Tradition. When the group that has changed more tells me that it’s OK because not all tradition is Tradition and anyway they have a magic key from God that lets them change anything they like–well, I’m not going to be very impressed!

I grew up in a Christian family that was always talking about “seeking the old paths.” When I did this, I found that our version of Christianity was really quite modern. That’s why I started questioning Protestantism in the first place. If Catholicism can’t defend itself on the grounds of historic Christian belief and practice, then what’s the point?

Edwin

 

[wynd]

God chose him Edwin to be the leader of all. What do you think it would be like if all of the Bishops had the same exact authority. How would it be possible to ever come to an agreement if the vote was say six to six Edwin. What would you suggest drawing straws???

That’s how they chose Matthias to replace Judas.

 

[josie_L]

It’s a bit ironic that you should accuse me of “omitting the Holy Spirit,” when the Catholic critique of the Orthodox does exactly that. Over and over again Catholics demand to know just how the Orthodox determine that a Council is Ecumenical, and when the Orthodox say, “through the work of the Holy Spirit,” Catholics scoff.

Wrong, Edwin, and this is why: Catholics believe that the Church will always be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth (as Jesus Christ said it would), but it is important to note that this Spirit must needs act through something/someone, i.e., for us it is through the magisterium headed by the Pope. When the magisterium convenes an ecumenical council (in communion with the pope) it is believed that what they decree (as long as it is confirmed by the pope) is true. An ecumenical council is guided by the Holy Spirit only when the magisterium is in communion with the pope (who also acts as an organ/ instrument by which the Holy Spirit can reveal truth). The thing is that like Protestants who claim the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit (which is true but incomplete) without crediting a visible organ/instrument by which it worked through, is similar to the Orthodox who say an ecumenical council is “through the work of the Holy Spirit”, without relaying the visible organ/instrument by which it worked through. No one is denying that the Holy Spirit is what keeps the Church free from error but the Holy Spirit needs a way to communicate truth in a manner visible (and consistent) to the Church. Here is a sample of what I mean:

The conciliarist approach is fundamentally ambiguous. “For Orthodoxy the sole criterion of the truth is the Holy Spirit himself, who will most assuredly guide the Church into all truth.” But how do we know when the Spirit has spoken? Through whom does he speak? How can we be sure what he is saying? What is the criterion of truth in the conciliarist scheme? In the ancient Church, “the criterion [of truth] was always truth itself, and not a visible organ of infallibility.” But the truth has to be articulated by someone. It does not suddenly appear out of the blue, perfectly apparent and clear to everyone.

Who is the guardian of truth in the Church? “[T]he sole guardian of truth is the Spirit of Truth which is loyal to the Church.” Again, the unanswered question is, through whom does the Spirit articulate and guard the faith? The Spirit is indeed loyal to the Church. But what happens when parts of the Church are disloyal to the Spirit? And how do we know they are in fact disloyal? The answer? “No institutional criterion, except the Spirit itself, can define the apostolic tradition.” Once more, how? Through whom? From conciliarism, still no answers.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

 

[josie_L]

I really don’t know if Birchall fabricated anything or if he distorts via addition.

I wonder what St Maximus would do if he were around today! Right now Rome is in communion with Monothelites. Not the heretical sort of course, but I don’t know that St Maximus ever made the distinction. An agreement for communion was made a number of years ago between Rome and His Holiness Pope Shenouda. Pope Shenouda doesn’t even use the term “Miaphysite”, although that is what his faith is, but he just calls it “Monophysite”. And he has made it clear that just as there is one nature there must be but one will. As far as I know St Maximus never said that it was ok the believe in only one nature and/or one will so long as you confess that it is a composite nature & composite will. St Maximus said you must confess two natures & two wills, no exceptions. Does anyone think that if St Maximus was here now that he would at least do anything he could to try and get the Pope of Rome to break the communion agreement made with Pope Shenouda? And what if Rome would not, would St Maximus dare to call Rome semi-monophysites? You know, in spite of all the things St Maximus said in favor of the supremacy of Rome I bet you he would brake down and even dare to call Rome heretical! Of course we will never know.

John, Rome is (we are) not in full communion with Monophysites (you’d do better to call it miaphysitism), even if we have made great headway in our relations with the Oriental Orthodox.

Moreover, the Syrian Orthodox ARE in limited communion with the Catholic Church.

No concelebrations, and not submitting to Roman Authority, but acknowleding the validity of Catholic Sacraments and hierarchy, and allowing (at least) Syrian Catholics to register in their parishes without renouncing their Catholicism, and likewise their faithful being allowed to register in Syrian Catholic parishes without renouncing their Syrian Orthodoxy.

The ACE are in a similar position with the Chaldean Catholic Church.

p.s. Is there another branch of Orthodoxy in which we are in limited communion with?

 

[josie_L]

It’s all over. I know that’s frustrating, but just about any papal action demonstrates it.

Look for instance at Humanae Vitae. This is regardless of whether the position found there is right or wrong. The point is that the Pope issued the document on his own authority, and it’s binding on the whole Church, whether or not it’s infallible.

No, the pope did not issue that document on his own authority, but on that authority we call TRADITION. He is simply reiterating what has always been held by the Church, and just like he should since he is the supreme guardian of the faith (and it’s not binding, i.e., dogma, but we must submit mind and will because even if it is spoken/ written through the ordinary magisterium it should from all intents and purposes align itself with Tradition).

p.s. I can’t believe that someone who claims to know so much (about religion) can know so little with regard to Catholicism.

 

[josie_L]

Try the selections by George Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky found as chaps. 5-7 of Daniel Clendenin’s Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (Baker, 2003).

This view is not too far different from that found in Vatican II’s Dei Verbum. The main difference (such as it is) is that the Catholic Church is more likely to define Tradition over against Scripture, while the Orthodox are more likely to subsume Tradition into Scripture. Florovsky, and Lossky, however, don’t entirely do this latter.

I understand that not all tradition is Tradition. But if you define Tradition in such a way that it is whatever your ecclesiastical authorities say it is, then it has become meaningless. Discussion on these forums has frequently shown me that many Catholics really don’t care about what the Fathers said or what the early Church looked like. You quote the Fathers selectively for your purposes, but when appeal is made to any aspect of early Christianity that doesn’t suit you, you sneer at the Church’s “infancy” and brandish the magic word “development.”

Blah, blah, blah, what hypocrisy Edwin, i.e., giving me Orthodox/secondary sources about the fathers/Tradition but at the same time telling me and others not to rely on Catholic/secondary sources about the fathers/Tradition. Well, in your own words Edwin let me return the favor you so everlastingly bestow on Catholics (every chance you get):

Of course if you don’t bother looking at the sources for yourself, but rely on secondary sources that share your bias, you will always think that things are as you wish them to be.

 

[Hesychios]

… Moreover, the Syrian Orthodox ARE in limited

WHAT?!

Aren’t you going to ask him for his source?

 

[josie_L]

You’re right. (Of course, it’s a bit ironic of you to call me out on that one, given your persistent use of collections of out-of-context quotations compiled by Catholic apologists. But I should hold myself to a higher standard.)

Baseless adhominens do you no credit, Edwin.

All I see there are snippets, chosen to advance an apologetics agenda.

If you noticed on the left hand corner of that website there were other websites mentioned connecting to the ECFs (including an Orthodox website).

Maximus seems to have believed that Rome could be counted on to defend the orthodox position. You can call that papal infallibility or not as you like. It wasn’t the same as the position defined at Vatican I, which explicitly rejected the consensus of the Church as the basis for papal authority. Maximus, on the other hand, believed that the Pope expressed the Catholic consensus–just as Irenaeus did back in the second century.

How about this novel idea Edwin, what if Maximus was defending Honorius because the pope was actually orthodox in his use of the term “one will”?

What does it mean to “believe in” a practice? He didn’t follow it. He doesn’t seem to have thought it was ideal. But he clearly defended it as a legitimate ancient tradition.

No, he did not defend this “legitimate ancient tradition” because it wasn’t legitimate, i.e., it was denounced as a heretical practice, i.e., in many councils following Pope St. Victor’s denunciation of celebrating Easter on a day other than the day Jesus resurrected, i.e., Sunday.

So you’re saying that the Pope was right?

Well, if he wasn’t can you tell me why (wasn’t this whole discussion supposed to be about his authority as the head of the Church):

According to Eusebius, a number of synods were convened to deal with the controversy, which he regarded as all ruling in support of Easter on Sunday.

Synods and conferences of bishops were convened, and without a dissenting voice, drew up a decree of the Church, in the form of letters addressed to Christians everywhere, that never on any day other than the Lord’s Day should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated, and on that day alone we should observe the end of the Paschal fast.[9]

A Palestinian synod, under the direction of bishops Narcissus and Theophilus, issued “a lengthy review of the tradition about the Easter festival [beginning Sunday eve] which had come down to them without a break from the apostles”, concluding:

Endeavor also to send abroad copies of our epistle among all the churches, so that those who easily deceive their own souls may not be able to lay the blame on us. We would have you know, too, that in Alexandria also they observe the festival on the same day as ourselves. For the Paschal letters are sent from us to them, and from them to us — so that we observe the holy day in unison and together.[10]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism

You may be right, but given the bare mention we can’t be sure. My guess would be that the folks spoken of at I Constantinople were those who rejected the consensus of the Church at 1 Nicea and went into schism. But I’d like to know more about it.

The decisive legislation on this matter was promulgated at the Second Ecumenical Council (A.D. 381) in its 7th Canon:

"Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom: we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves ‘pure and better,’ Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say, ‘seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those belonging to] any other heresies — for there are many of them here, especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, — all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks . Accordingly, on the first day we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcise them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus we do catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen the Scriptures; and then we baptize them."[27]

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html

to be continued. . . . .

 

[josie_L]

WHAT?!

Aren’t you going to ask him for his source?

No, I didn’t ask for a source (but you are right I will check this out myself) but I’m trying to understand why John VIII said we’re in communion with monophysites, i.e., is what I quoted what he meant by communion?

p.s. I know for sure that we are not in full communion with any miaphysites/monophysites

 

[steve_b]

It’s all over. I know that’s frustrating, but just about any papal action demonstrates it.
Look for instance at Humanae Vitae. This is regardless of whether the position found there is right or wrong. The point is that the Pope issued the document on his own authority, and it’s binding on the whole Church, whether or not it’s infallible.

As medicine advanced, the pope condemning artificial birth control in Humanae Vitae, has been proven correct.
C:

Where does Eusebius (or any other source of which you’re aware) say that his objection was to the Pope acting precipitately? You can read what Eusebius actually says here (chaps. 23-25). In fact, you could have looked it up for yourself before just dumping a standard bit of canned apologetics onto me.

Why do you have a problem with the term precipitately?

Here’s the quote I used, again…

*St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists. *

Nothing here contradicts what your source says.

• Eusebius says (ch 23, from your reference) councils formed in Rome, Palistine, Jerusalem, Gaul, Greece, etc and all condemned quartodeciman for not celebrating Easter on Sunday. The entire Church celebrated Easter on Sunday. Therefore he indicates this controversy is contained within the Asiatics, specifically, Asia minor (per the names and sees mentioned).
• Irenaeus was mentioned as one of the bishops who condemned the quartodeciman practice.
• Eusebius says Irenaeus was one of the bishops who reproached Victor for excommunicatiing the asiatics
• When did Eusebius say was the end of the controversy?

C:

Eusebius’s language is that the Pope attempted to cut them off. That implies that he couldn’t just do it on his own authority. Catholic apologists spin this desperately, of course.

If the pope could not excommunicate on his own authority, (which we know he can), why did Irenaeus and other bishops even try to persuade Victor to withdraw excommunication of the quartodecimans?
C:

Of course if you don’t bother looking at the sources for yourself, but rely on secondary sources that share your bias, you will always think that things are as you wish them to be.

our sources your’s and mine, don’t contradicted each other. They just say it differently.

I’d say Your bias caused you to respond precipitately

 

[guanophore]

It’s all over. I know that’s frustrating, but just about any papal action demonstrates it.

Look for instance at Humanae Vitae. This is regardless of whether the position found there is right or wrong. The point is that the Pope issued the document on his own authority, and it’s binding on the whole Church, whether or not it’s infallible.

Do you honestly believe this, Edwin?

Do you believe Jesus gave no authority to Peter?

Do you believe Peter did not pass on any authority to his successor?

Do you not believe that all authority comes from God?!

To say that the pope issues a formal document “by his own authority” is a complete denial of Scripture.

Rom.13
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

What you seem to be having is a serious authority problem.

 

[guanophore]

This view is not too far different from that found in Vatican II’s Dei Verbum. The main difference (such as it is) is that the Catholic Church is more likely to define Tradition over against Scripture,

This is a spurious claim. What does it even mean?

“define Tradition over against Scripture”?

The Catholic Church has not need to pit the two strands of the One Divine Deposit of Faith “over against” each other! They compelment one another. Tradtiion is the lens through which we understand what is written in Scripture.

while the Orthodox are more likely to subsume Tradition into Scripture.

Another spurious claim. What does that mean? “subsume tradition into scripture”!?

The Orthodox share our perspective that Sacred Tradtiion produced the scriptures, and that neither “subsumes” or is used “over against” the other. They complement one another.

I understand that not all tradition is Tradition. But if you define Tradition in such a way that it is whatever your ecclesiastical authorities say it is, then it has become meaningless.

You are the only one here that I have seen doing that.

You quote the Fathers selectively for your purposes, but when appeal is made to any aspect of early Christianity that doesn’t suit you, you sneer at the Church’s “infancy” and brandish the magic word “development.”

There are practices among early Christianity that have been dropped. I was just reading today about Paul commenting on the baptism of the dead.

As a historian, I have no use for any Tradition that ignores tradition.

Why would you want to have your insight into Divine Revelation governed by human customs.

When the group that has changed more tells me that it’s OK because not all tradition is Tradition and anyway they have a magic key from God that lets them change anything they like–well, I’m not going to be very impressed!

It seems like you ought to know better than this, after all the time you have been on CAF, Edwin. The Keys that were given to Peter do not enable him to change “anything they like”. No changes can be made to the once for all deposit of truth. Why do you spew this kind of drivel?

I grew up in a Christian family that was always talking about “seeking the old paths.” When I did this, I found that our version of Christianity was really quite modern. That’s why I started questioning Protestantism in the first place. If Catholicism can’t defend itself on the grounds of historic Christian belief and practice, then what’s the point?

I am glad you are open to understanding the history of your faith, but making up strawmen is really not going to help your quest, is it?

You seem to have such a hostility toward authority. Why is that?

 

[josie_L]

Not at all. There’s a strong push toward uniformity throughout the history of the Church.

Yes, well that push towards uniformity might have something to do with the fact that the practice in question was deemed heretical.

You’re reading that into what Irenaeus says, because your presuppositions require you to do so. He doesn’t say anything about eliminating the practice.

No, I’m not presupposing anything because St. Irenaeus disagreed with Pope St. Victor regarding the excommunication not because he agreed with the quartodeciman practice (in fact we do not here St. Irenaeus condemn the subsequent councils condemning the quartodeciman practice):

Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses … But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: They replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbors. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor."[8]

Eusebius. “Church History”. p. 5.24.

St. Irenaeus “rebukes” Pope St. Victor (after he realized that the pope wanted/had excommunicated the Asian Church) not because he is opposing his authority to do so (in fact he indirectly supports papal authority in that he presupposes that it can be done) but because he thought it unjust (popes are not impeccable and therefore can be reprimanded just like St. Peter was by St. Paul).

The article does not prove this. It proves that Augustine says this. I can’t see that it provides evidence that they actually deceived anyone.

Of course it doesn’t Edwin.

Both here and in the Monothelite case you are too quick to assume that the orthodox characterization of heretics is entirely trustworthy. (Hence, you assume that the Eastern Monothelites lacked the estimable and orthodox intentions that clearly motivated Honorius.) It’s much wiser to assume the opposite. We can assent to the judgment of the ancient Church on the ideas without naively trusting their judgment on the motives of the people involved. Early Christians routinely assumed that heretics were deceitful people, and they put the worst possible construction on their actions. I regard all such claims with extreme skepticism. Any church historian worth his salt (and not compelled to do otherwise by a misguided reverence for the Fathers) would do the same.

Any Church historian worth his salt would know that the Monophysites werer disobedient towards not only the Church but the divinely-revealed dogma decreed at Chalcedon (when they rejected it). No matter how well-intentioned they Monophysites/Monothelites were they divided the Church.

It’s not entirely clear who was innovating, but I agree that Pope St. Stephen was right.

It was St. Cyprian who was innovating by introducing a practice that was novel to the Church, i.e., rebaptism, in fact, here’s an article by a Russian Orthodox delineating the unorthodoxy of rebaptism: holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

No, but when you find orthodox Fathers who express belief in papal authority routinely turning around and standing up to Popes when they thought it necessary, you have to conclude that they understood papal authority as subordinate to the authority of the whole Church and the ancient Tradition, and that their expressions of belief in papal authority must be read as conditional.

Even if a few orthodox fathers did not see eye to eye with the pope on faith issues at first the end result is that they either gave in to his greater authority/understanding (St. Cyprian) and/or they realized the superficiality of the disagreement (St. Augustine). Moreover, you cannot conclude that THEY understood papal authority as subordinate to the authority of the whole Church (if by whole Church you mean the episcopacy) because it was not the whole Church standing up to the popes but certain individual bishops. You are correct however that papal authority (just like the magisterium is) was/is subordinate to Traditon, i.e., the pope is confined to the constitutions of the Church.

 

[josie_L]

Tradition is the lens through which we understand what is written in Scripture.

And it (Tradition) should be the lens by which we interpret Church history (not vise versa as some people are wont to do).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Appeal of Eastern Orthodoxy – and Its Fatal Flaw

by Brian W. Harrison

Why I Didn’t Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

This writer (a convert and Catholic priest) wrote a piece entitled
Logic and the Foundation of Protestantism which he refers to in this article, but not by name. It’s available on line.

Jim Dandy

 

[josephdaniel29]

The Appeal of Eastern Orthodoxy – and Its Fatal Flaw

Does no one see the irony in this title?

 

[JohnVIII]

We are not in communion with Monophysites (John VIII is a Catholic who used to be Oriental Orthodox, i.e., Miaphysite).

There is an agreement in place between Rome and His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria for inter-communion. You would probably call this “partial communion” as there has not been an agreement as to jurisdiction. But from the point of view of the prior postings about St Maximus the Confessor, just the fact that there is inter-communion would be enough to upset St Maximus I am presuming. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria is “Maiphysite”, but you see not all who are Maiphysite in their belief use that term, and His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria is one who does not. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria is Maiphysite but he calls himself “Monophysite”! So that being the case I was trying to make the point that if St Maximus where here today he would be very upset that Rome has an agreement for inter-communion with His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria; and I am asking the question, knowing all the things St Maximus said about the supremacy of Rome, would he remain in communion with Rome if Rome refused to brake the agreement of inter-communion with His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria? My intention here is not to speak bad of Rome nor of Pope Shenouda, I am directing my posting about St Maximus, who I had said that I didn’t personally care much for this saint - the only thing I did like about St Maximus was what he had to say about the supremacy of Rome.