Rome's authority over Orthodox; Validity of Orthodox sacraments

[Bluegoat]

That is why we say…the consensus of the Holy Fathers.

Yes. But when there is only one record of an event, and everyone, including the Holy Fathers, is working from that, that still comes down to just the interpretation of one person.

Which usually still means that the facts are correct if it was an official document, but the tone can be difficult to interpret.

 

[Warrenton]

He was rejecting the tradition of St Nicholas slapping the heretic Arius, being deposed and then reinstated by the Fathers of the Council because of a common vision. This is not politics.

I was not rejecting that story. I was merely pointing out that there is peril in putting our own moral content into ancient accounts, or adopting the implied moral tone of the ancient accounts. If someone wants to relitigate the case of Photius v. Ignatius, be my guest. All I am saying is that to do so, one has to rely on biased sources. If bias in the source is not a problem to a person, great. I don’t know any fair minded people who would willingly select a biased juror, however.

That St. George slayed the dragon is a tradition, just like St. Simeon sat on a pillar. The traditions relate facts. The Apostle’s Creed is a tradition. It states a verbal fact: “Credo.”

“Arius was a proud man,” “Nestorius was a greedy man,” “The Pope of Alexandria was a duplicitous man” may all come from ancient sources, but they are inherently subjective. They are the record of some mortal’s opinion of otyher mortals who had a role in the what we call tradition. Their subjective beliefs are not magically transformed into anything other than an opinion by virtue of the subject matter being subsumed within tradition.

 

[Ruprecht]

Mickey and Warrenton:
Whether or not St. Nicholas did strike Arius, I take great joy in the image of Santa Claus popping a heretic in the snoot!! " Arius, you are on the Naughty List!"
:christmastree1:

 As to the question of to what level will the Orthodox accept Papal authority, we all need to first define our terms.  So many of us who are concerned with reunion are using our own definitions of what papal supremacy/authority/position of honor really mean.  One good place to start is a post in the Eastern Catholic forum, written by mardukm, on the High Petrine view of papal authority.

Here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599730

 Mardukm's post summarizes in clear and simple detail the three leading options.  My own view, which is at about the High Petrine level, is thus: the Popes as they interacted with all the bishops during the seven ecumenical councils, often acted as moderator and at the end of the council, proclaimed the decisions of the council *ex cathedra*, i.e., from the chair. That may be a bit simplistic and of course the then-current Pope was not always at the councils, but he was usually represented.  But I believe the records show that the Pope proclaimed the canons of each council.  (Please don't flame me, I am NOT a council historian!)

A modern analogy would be that the Pope acts like the chairman of the board of directors of a corporation: he is a member of the board but also the arbiter and spokesman of the board.
Just my thoughts, but hey, I might be wrong… bob.c

 

[Hesychios]

: the Popes as they interacted with all the bishops during the seven ecumenical councils, often acted as moderator and at the end of the council, proclaimed the decisions of the council ex cathedra, i.e., from the chair

Actually, no Pope attended any of the Councils, no Pope called any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, chaired them nor deliberated in them nor dismissed them. There was at least one Council which was called over the objections of the bishop of Rome (I forget which one).

All synods were expected to ratify the Councils, which is why Ecumenical Councils do not get the recognition as such until another gathering afterward (which might be decades later). The Metropolitan church at Rome was one of many which would have been hoped to endorse the Council. Councils take effect as soon as the participating or endorsing churches can implement them.

So then, Popes did not interact with the participants of the Councils nor moderate any part of the Councils. The decrees of the Councils were read and declared by the chairs of the Councils, none of which were bishops of Rome.

 

[Ruprecht]

Hesychios: oops, I stand corrected on the ratification and participation by Rome, although I do remember reading about Pope St. Leo’s work in the 4th E/C. Is there a good source, as unbiased as one can expect, which reviews the seven councils? I have seen Schaff’s book listed and looked quickly at Wikipedia (!!!) but I didn’t linger long. Here and there in Wiki I did see references, though, to ratification by Rome and various synods, but I gotta study more on this subject.
BTW, I did know about the Roman Emperors calling the councils; in my (former) ancient coin collection, I had a coin from each of these emperors. Thanks for the correction, and any good sources you can think of on the spot.