The Eastern Sees, prior to the east - west schism: were they wrong?

[Hesychios]

I thought that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem.

There were more Jews outside of Palestine than in Palestine, even in those centuries.

 

[gtrenewed]

This event, and others like it such as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification will begin to heal the splits that have emanated from ecclesial corruption in the Western Church. In my study of Orthodoxy, I have read many who make the point that the Western Church must first deal with Protestantism before unity can be re-established between East and West.

Could you please explain “…deal with protestantism before unity can be re-established…”?
Thanks

 

[josephdaniel29]

Regarding basic Church history and what it bears: your answer to post #1 is, upon reading said quotes?

Joe I’ll be honest, I don’t even read quotes anymore. This isn’t my first time around the block. I doubt you have any I haven’t read a dozen times or more in the past. I have an entire arsenal as well. The question is, what are we going to prove with a game of dueling quotes?

As I said earlier, talk is cheap; especially coming out of a culture known for flowery, exuberant language. If you look at the way the early Church behaved you get a very different picture of ecclesiology and the role of the papacy than the picture painted by the modern Roman Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

Joe I’ll be honest, I don’t even read quotes anymore. This isn’t my first time around the block. I doubt you have any I haven’t read a dozen times or more in the past. I have an entire arsenal as well. The question is, what are we going to prove with a game of dueling quotes?

As I said earlier, talk is cheap; especially coming out of a culture known for flowery, exuberant language. If you look at the way the early Church behaved you get a very different picture of ecclesiology and the role of the papacy than the picture painted by the modern Roman Catholic Church.

Well, I was willing to amiably challenge you on that, as well as being willing to read what you have in your arsenal of quotes regarding your picture of ecclesiology and the role of the papacy, but if talk is cheap to you then I won’t take up any more of your time Joe. If talk is cheap then what’s the point of being here at CAF, talking with others?

 

[Monica4316]

It is also an historical fact that the “protos” didn’t behave then as he does now. Even the most cursory reading of basic Church history bears that out. Roman Catholics are very fond of their quote mills. The thing is, talk is cheap. Look at the way the Church behaved for the first thousand years and you get a very different picture of the role of the papacy.

Actually, there is evidence that the Pope had an important role in the Ecumenical Councils… there was even a quote that said that Councils were not considered ecumenical if the Pope was not notified at least by writing. Pope Gregory (who lived around the 6th century) even said that other Sees are subject to his, and he was definitely a very humble Pope who respected the roles of other Bishops.

God bless

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Of course he had a unique role and responsibility: he was Apostle to the Jews. St. Paul also had a unique role and responsibility: Apostle to the Gentiles.

Actually, I was referring to St. Peter’s role as confirmer of the brethren (Luke 22) and chief shepherd (Matthew 24 + John 21), which no other Apostle had from Christ. As the Fathers unanimously affirm, St. Peter was the coryphaeus of the Apostles.

With regards to your specific example of being Apostle to the Jews “vs.” Apostle to the Gentiles, brother Prodigal Son has pointed out that God Himself appointed St. Peter the Apostle to the Gentiles. The Apostles may have delegated the job to St. Paul at a later time, but that could in no way diminish the divine appointment of St. Peter. Nothing that is ecclesiastically established can ever overcome the truth, fact or force of something divinely established.

This is analogous to the creation of patriarchates in the Church. The primordial government established by Christ had/has one visible head (coryphaeus). In the Apostolic College, it was St. Peter. His successors in Rome inherited this office and responsibility. Later in the fourth century, the Chruch saw it fit to establish Patriarchates for the sake of better administration of the Church. Rome, naturally, was one of these Patriarchates. But this establishment of patriarchal jurisdictions does not in the least diminish the truth, fact or force of the divinely established office of the coryphaeus of the Church militant which was the inheritance of the bishop Rome through St. Peter from Christ himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Monica4316]

Ok, so Rome has precedence. Nothing surprising here, the ecumenical councils said the same. And the reason cited by Theodore for this precedence is that nobody heterodox has ever sat in Rome. Well great. But so what? Nothing interesting here. It’s not even as impressive as when the Pope said to the emperor that “no error can dilute your faith”.

This quote is from the link about the Orthodox reply to these quotes…

This person admits that the Ecumenical Councils said that Rome has precedence, and that no one heterodox has ever sat in Rome. They say this is not significant, but actually, - I think it is! When we look at the Eastern churches, there were many times when the Bishops or Patriarchs were in heresy (ie: Arian, etc). The fact that Rome is different, already points to infallibility of the Pope. And if the Ecumenical Councils affirm to that, - well that is further proof that the Papacy has historical roots…

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Monica,

Actually, there is evidence that the Pope had an important role in the Ecumenical Councils… there was even a quote that said that Councils were not considered ecumenical if the Pope was not notified at least by writing. Pope Gregory (who lived around the 6th century) even said that other Sees are subject to his, and he was definitely a very humble Pope who respected the roles of other Bishops.

I don’t think brother Josephdaniel is denying this. In fact, it really does not diminish the truth of what he stated. There are indeed a lot of Latin Catholics who fail to see the collegial reality of the first millenium Church. Pointing out the Pope’s role in an Ecumenical Council only reinforces his point, really.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, I was willing to amiably challenge you on that, as well as being willing to read what you have in your arsenal of quotes regarding your picture of ecclesiology and the role of the papacy, but if talk is cheap to you then I won’t take up any more of your time Joe. If talk is cheap then what’s the point of being here at CAF, talking with others?

If I tell my wife she’s the love of my life and then turn around and cheat on her my words didn’t mean much did they? If you are nice to me here on CAF and then refuse to shake my hand in person how much did your nice words mean? That is the point I’m making.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There were more Jews outside of Palestine than in Palestine, even in those centuries.

But, the Apostles were Bishops over the Christian Church. There was neither Gentile nor Jew.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, I was willing to amiably challenge you on that, as well as being willing to read what you have in your arsenal of quotes regarding your picture of ecclesiology and the role of the papacy, but if talk is cheap to you then I won’t take up any more of your time Joe. If talk is cheap then what’s the point of being here at CAF, talking with others?

Well this should stimulate some discussion one way or another. These are some examples of what I’m talking about. This is just what I could come up with off the top of my head. I imagine if you sat down and looked you could come up with quite a few more.

1. None of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were called or attended by the pope

• First Council of Nicea was called without even consulting the pope.
• The Second Council was called without the knowledge of the pope and was chaired by a bishop (St Meletius) who was not in communion with Rome.
• The Third Council convened to hear the case of Nestorius. The pope had already excommunicated him, but the council seated him as a bishop anyway. They went on to try his case and then issued the formal excommunication.
• The Fourth Council was held against the expressed wishes of Pope Leo, who wanted a council held in the West. The Council went on to declare that the Bishop of Rome was “granted” his “privileges” by the fathers “because it was the Royal City”, an idea that is sheer heresy according to modern Catholic teaching. The Council then went on to grant “equal privileges” to Constantinople because it is “the New Rome.” Also there is the issue of the famous Tome of Leo, which was not accepted because it was from the hand of the pope, but rather it was thoroughly scrutinized by the council fathers to determine its orthodoxy. Only after they had examined the document was it received.
• The Fifth Council was called against the wishes of Pope Vigilius and condemned the Three Chapters, a document which the Pope had supported. The Council then struck the Bishop of Rome from the diptychs.
• The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius for the heresy of Monothelitism. That anathematization was upheld by popes up to the 11th century.
• The Seventh Ecumenical Council was called by the Empress Irene to condemn the iconoclast heresy

.

1. Every single Apostolic See broke communion with Rome and in the case of at least Alexandria and Antioch, they broke communion with Rome twice (after Chalcedon and the Great Schism).
2. The pope was struck from the diptyches of some of the Eastern Apostolic Sees on multiple occasions.
3. There is no mention of universal jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility in the acts of any of the Ecumenical Councils.
4. There is not a single instance of the pope declaring a dogma ex cathedra ala the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.
5. One of the most famous Eastern saints St John Chrysostom was ordained by a bishop not in communion with Rome and spent the vast majority of his career out of communion with Rome. It was not until he ascended to the Throne of Constantinople that he came into communion with Rome.
6. St John Chrysostom’s famous “appeal” from exile, a document Catholic apologist bring out to prove papal supremacy, was also addressed to the Bishop of Milan and the Bishop of Aquileia. If the Bishop of Rome really was the supreme authority of the Church why would he have the temerity to address the same letter to two other bishops?
7. Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria convened a synod to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome. Dioscorus was then seated at the Council of Chalcedon against the wishes of the papal legates.
8. During the Meletian Schism the Eastern Church supported St Meletius over the Paulinus, the candidate backed by Rome. In fact, St Basil the Great had no problem resisting Rome on this issue. This same St Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome, went on to chair the Second Ecumenical Council. After his sudden death during the Council the East continued to ignore Rome and its candidate Paulinus and elected Flavian to the See of Antioch.
9. St Cyprian had no problem resisting Pope St Stephen on the issue of re-baptism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

I will always be of one mind with you on the principle of the collegial nature of the Church (something the High and Low Petrine views share in common). But when you start to argue as if the head bishop of the Church was of little or no consequence to the life of the Church in the first millenium, then we will naturally be a odds. There are many factual/historic errors and omissions in your presentation below, but I don’t have the time right now to properly and fully explicate the matter. Perhaps this weekend…

Blessings,
Marduk

Well this should stimulate some discussion one way or another. These are some examples of what I’m talking about. This is just what I could come up with off the top of my head. I imagine if you sat down and looked you could come up with quite a few more.

1. None of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were called or attended by the pope

• First Council of Nicea was called without even consulting the pope.
• The Second Council was called without the knowledge of the pope and was chaired by a bishop (St Meletius) who was not in communion with Rome.
• The Third Council convened to hear the case of Nestorius. The pope had already excommunicated him, but the council seated him as a bishop anyway. They went on to try his case and then issued the formal excommunication.
• The Fourth Council was held against the expressed wishes of Pope Leo, who wanted a council held in the West. The Council went on to declare that the Bishop of Rome was “granted” his “privileges” by the fathers “because it was the Royal City”, an idea that is sheer heresy according to modern Catholic teaching. The Council then went on to grant “equal privileges” to Constantinople because it is “the New Rome.” Also there is the issue of the famous Tome of Leo, which was not accepted because it was from the hand of the pope, but rather it was thoroughly scrutinized by the council fathers to determine its orthodoxy. Only after they had examined the document was it received.
• The Fifth Council was called against the wishes of Pope Vigilius and condemned the Three Chapters, a document which the Pope had supported. The Council then struck the Bishop of Rome from the diptychs.
• The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius for the heresy of Monothelitism. That anathematization was upheld by popes up to the 11th century.
• The Seventh Ecumenical Council was called by the Empress Irene to condemn the iconoclast heresy

.

1. Every single Apostolic See broke communion with Rome and in the case of at least Alexandria and Antioch, they broke communion with Rome twice (after Chalcedon and the Great Schism).
2. The pope was struck from the diptyches of some of the Eastern Apostolic Sees on multiple occasions.
3. There is no mention of universal jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility in the acts of any of the Ecumenical Councils.
4. There is not a single instance of the pope declaring a dogma ex cathedra ala the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.
5. One of the most famous Eastern saints St John Chrysostom was ordained by a bishop not in communion with Rome and spent the vast majority of his career out of communion with Rome. It was not until he ascended to the Throne of Constantinople that he came into communion with Rome.
6. St John Chrysostom’s famous “appeal” from exile, a document Catholic apologist bring out to prove papal supremacy, was also addressed to the Bishop of Milan and the Bishop of Aquileia. If the Bishop of Rome really was the supreme authority of the Church why would he have the temerity to address the same letter to two other bishops?
7. Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria convened a synod to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome. Dioscorus was then seated at the Council of Chalcedon against the wishes of the papal legates.
8. During the Meletian Schism the Eastern Church supported St Meletius over the Paulinus, the candidate backed by Rome. In fact, St Basil the Great had no problem resisting Rome on this issue. This same St Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome, went on to chair the Second Ecumenical Council. After his sudden death during the Council the East continued to ignore Rome and its candidate Paulinus and elected Flavian to the See of Antioch.
9. St Cyprian had no problem resisting Pope St Stephen on the issue of re-baptism.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Well this should stimulate some discussion one way or another. These are some examples of what I’m talking about. This is just what I could come up with off the top of my head. I imagine if you sat down and looked you could come up with quite a few more.

1. None of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were called or attended by the pope

• First Council of Nicea was called without even consulting the pope.
• The Second Council was called without the knowledge of the pope and was chaired by a bishop (St Meletius) who was not in communion with Rome.
• The Third Council convened to hear the case of Nestorius. The pope had already excommunicated him, but the council seated him as a bishop anyway. They went on to try his case and then issued the formal excommunication.
• The Fourth Council was held against the expressed wishes of Pope Leo, who wanted a council held in the West. The Council went on to declare that the Bishop of Rome was “granted” his “privileges” by the fathers “because it was the Royal City”, an idea that is sheer heresy according to modern Catholic teaching. The Council then went on to grant “equal privileges” to Constantinople because it is “the New Rome.” Also there is the issue of the famous Tome of Leo, which was not accepted because it was from the hand of the pope, but rather it was thoroughly scrutinized by the council fathers to determine its orthodoxy. Only after they had examined the document was it received.
• The Fifth Council was called against the wishes of Pope Vigilius and condemned the Three Chapters, a document which the Pope had supported. The Council then struck the Bishop of Rome from the diptychs.
• The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius for the heresy of Monothelitism. That anathematization was upheld by popes up to the 11th century.
• The Seventh Ecumenical Council was called by the Empress Irene to condemn the iconoclast heresy

.

1. Every single Apostolic See broke communion with Rome and in the case of at least Alexandria and Antioch, they broke communion with Rome twice (after Chalcedon and the Great Schism).
2. The pope was struck from the diptyches of some of the Eastern Apostolic Sees on multiple occasions.
3. There is no mention of universal jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility in the acts of any of the Ecumenical Councils.
4. There is not a single instance of the pope declaring a dogma ex cathedra ala the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.
5. One of the most famous Eastern saints St John Chrysostom was ordained by a bishop not in communion with Rome and spent the vast majority of his career out of communion with Rome. It was not until he ascended to the Throne of Constantinople that he came into communion with Rome.
6. St John Chrysostom’s famous “appeal” from exile, a document Catholic apologist bring out to prove papal supremacy, was also addressed to the Bishop of Milan and the Bishop of Aquileia. If the Bishop of Rome really was the supreme authority of the Church why would he have the temerity to address the same letter to two other bishops?
7. Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria convened a synod to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome. Dioscorus was then seated at the Council of Chalcedon against the wishes of the papal legates.
8. During the Meletian Schism the Eastern Church supported St Meletius over the Paulinus, the candidate backed by Rome. In fact, St Basil the Great had no problem resisting Rome on this issue. This same St Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome, went on to chair the Second Ecumenical Council. After his sudden death during the Council the East continued to ignore Rome and its candidate Paulinus and elected Flavian to the See of Antioch.
9. St Cyprian had no problem resisting Pope St Stephen on the issue of re-baptism.

Is that all?

Just kidding. Thank you for taking the time to present the Orthodox case. I find it convincing, which is part of the reason why I am currently attending an Orthodox church.

I do suspect our Latin brothers have a different view on this history…

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

I will always be of one mind with you on the principle of the collegial nature of the Church (something the High and Low Petrine views share in common). But when you start to argue as if the head bishop of the Church was of little or no consequence to the life of the Church in the first millenium, then we will naturally be a odds. There are many factual/historic errors and omissions in your presentation below, but I don’t have the time right now to properly and fully explicate the matter. Perhaps this weekend…

Blessings,
Marduk

The actions of the Church during its first 1000 years would seem to vitiate the Roman Catholic argument that universal Papal supremacy and infallibility were recognised by the Early Church outside of Rome.

I think the filioque controversy is most telling: if the Church always recognised the universal supremacy of Rome, why did the other apostolic sees strike the pope from the diptyches and eventually break communion when Rome imposed its new version of the Creed?

 

[mardukm]

Dear Jesusfor Madrid,

Thank you for the questions.

The actions of the Church during its first 1000 years would seem to vitiate the Roman Catholic argument that universal Papal supremacy and infallibility were recognised by the Early Church outside of Rome.

The witness of the first 1000 years vitiates against the Absolutist Petrine view held by many Latin Catholics, as well as the Low Petrine view held by many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine view, on the other hand, is the only one that matches both the reality and the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Church in the first millenium.

I think the filioque controversy is most telling: if the Church always recognised the universal supremacy of Rome, why did the other apostolic sees strike the pope from the diptyches and eventually break communion when Rome imposed its new version of the Creed?

They struck the Popes from the diptychs because many Easterns failed to understand that the theology of Rome on the matter of Filioque was actually fully Orthodox (which many EO admit today - see the North American Catholic-Orthodox Agreement on the Filioque). That they broke from Rome over a misunderstanding doesn’t help the EO argument against the papacy at all.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

I don’t have much time, so I’ll only address these points cursorily. If you want to discuss further, I pray I will have time next week to give a more complete explanation:

1. None of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were called or attended by the pope

But EVERY ONE of these Ecumenical Councils was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome.

1. Every single Apostolic See broke communion with Rome and in the case of at least Alexandria and Antioch, they broke communion with Rome twice (after Chalcedon and the Great Schism).

Every apostolic See who broke communion with Rome did so either out of a perceived heresy or an actual heresy. Appealing to heretics or perceived heretics to support your position actually weakens your argument.

1. The pope was struck from the diptyches of some of the Eastern Apostolic Sees on multiple occasions.

See #2 above.

1. There is no mention of universal jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility in the acts of any of the Ecumenical Councils.

False. I don’t have the time to research right now, but the quotes are there. If you want to pursue the matter, I pray I will have the time to provide those quotes, or perhaps others will be accomodating on the matter.

I agree with you that the bishop of Rome had no universal “jurisdiction” if one understands “jurisdiction” in terms of “control.” But if one understands “jurisdiction” in terms of “solicitude” (to use Fr. Schmemann’s terminology), then the bishop of Rome certainly did so.

1. There is not a single instance of the pope declaring a dogma ex cathedra ala the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

St. Peter did so in Acts 11. I believe the Tome of Pope St. Leo against the Eutychian heresy and the Epistle of Pope St. Agatho are also considered examples of Ex cathedra Decrees by the Pope. During the late medieval period, the papal Decree on the Beatific Vision is generally regarded by Catholics as having the character of an ex cathedra decree (that’s one I can thnk of off-hand).

1. One of the most famous Eastern saints St John Chrysostom was ordained by a bishop not in communion with Rome and spent the vast majority of his career out of communion with Rome. It was not until he ascended to the Throne of Constantinople that he came into communion with Rome.

False. The See of Antioch was in communion with the See of Rome even before the Second Ecumenical Council of 381. This is demonstrated by the appeal of the See of Antioch to Pope St. Damasus in Rome on the question of the Holy Spirit, which occurred a few years before the Ecum Council of 381. The Synod of Antioch adhered to the teaching of Rome on the issue. The only pretended proof for a break in communion between the See of Antioch and the See of Rome is the fact that the Meletian party in Antioch was not in communion with the Paulinist party in Antioch. But that is a very weak proof for their case since St. Basil, who was not in communion with the Paulinist Party, but in communion with the Meletian Party, was himself in communion with the See of Rome.

1. St John Chrysostom’s famous “appeal” from exile, a document Catholic apologist bring out to prove papal supremacy, was also addressed to the Bishop of Milan and the Bishop of Aquileia. If the Bishop of Rome really was the supreme authority of the Church why would he have the temerity to address the same letter to two other bishops?

That merely demonstrates the collegial reality of the early Church. It does nothing to refute the status of the Bishop of Rome as protos of the Western Churches (or of the Church as a whole). There are other writings from St. Chrysostom that demonstrate his acknowledgement of the headship of the See of Rome in the Church universal. If you want to pursue this matter, I will give you those explicit quotes (unless someone else has not done so in the meantime).

1. Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria convened a synod to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome. Dioscorus was then seated at the Council of Chalcedon against the wishes of the papal legates.

OO and CC today formally and officially have admitted that the schism was due to a theological misunderstanding. The Catholic Church does not deny that one can refuse the authority of a Pope who has fallen into heresy. So this circumstance is no proof against Catholic teachings on the papacy.

1. During the Meletian Schism the Eastern Church supported St Meletius over the Paulinus, the candidate backed by Rome. In fact, St Basil the Great had no problem resisting Rome on this issue. This same St Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome, went on to chair the Second Ecumenical Council. After his sudden death during the Council the East continued to ignore Rome and its candidate Paulinus and elected Flavian to the See of Antioch.

False. See #6 above. You also fail to mention that Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria explicitly supported the Paulinist party, after what seemed to Pope St. Athanasius as a rebuff from St. Meletius. So please don’t pretend that this was about “the Eastern Church vs. Rome.” The issue was much more nuanced and complicated than that.

1. St Cyprian had no problem resisting Pope St Stephen on the issue of re-baptism.

Which St. Cyprian regarded as an issue of discipline, not doctrine. On the other hand, on the matter of doctrine, St. Cyprian wrote Pope St. Cornelius that the Church in Rome was the Church from which all priestly unity flowed, and that heresy “could not” infect the Faith of the Church in Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AveChriste11]

Hmm Joe, I’m wondering what was the point of the question in the original post when you already know our answers? We have a different understanding of each of those quotes, when read in context of everything else that particular father was writing. I’m currently reading a book called The Papacy; Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches it’s by Abbe Guettee, D.D. originally written in French. I believe he was originally an RC monk, and he has a lot of interesting things to say. You should definitley get it, if you ever have a chance to do so.

Loving regards!

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Dear Jesusfor Madrid,
They struck the Popes from the diptychs because many Easterns failed to understand that the theology of Rome on the matter of Filioque was actually fully Orthodox (which many EO admit today - see the North American Catholic-Orthodox Agreement on the Filioque). That they broke from Rome over a misunderstanding doesn’t help the EO argument against the papacy at all.

Blessings,
Marduk

Perhaps true, but that sidesteps the point regarding the papacy.

If the Bishop of Rome enjoyed anything like universal jurisdiction and supremacy, then the Eastern sees would have taken the time to understand that “the theology of Rome on the matter of the filioque was actually fully Orthodox”. I haven’t seen that they spent much time reflecting on this, given the timing of their decision to strike the Pope from the diptychs even before the Great Schism. If you were right here, I would have expected them to act more cautiously.

Moreover, if the Bishop of Rome was acting ex cathedra and thus infallibly in this instance (the standard for infallibility seems somewhat flexible), the Eastern sees should have accepted the filioque even if they didn’t believe it or understand it to be fully Orthodox.

That they did neither but instead struck the popes from the diptychs would seem to support the Orthodox “low Petrine” view, I should think.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Hmm Joe, I’m wondering what was the point of the question in the original post when you already know our answers? We have a different understanding of each of those quotes, when read in context of everything else that particular father was writing. I’m currently reading a book called The Papacy; Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches it’s by Abbe Guettee, D.D. originally written in French. I believe he was originally an RC monk, and he has a lot of interesting things to say. You should definitley get it, if you ever have a chance to do so.

Loving regards!

Were you chrismated on Sunday? If so, many years!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

If the Bishop of Rome enjoyed anything like universal jurisdiction and supremacy, then the Eastern sees would have taken the time to understand that “the theology of Rome on the matter of the filioque was actually fully Orthodox”. I haven’t seen that they spent much time reflecting on this, given the timing of their decision to strike the Pope from the diptychs even before the Great Schism. If you were right here, I would have expected them to act more cautiously.

If it is true that the theology of Rome regarding filioque was in fact orthodox, that would seem to reflect a rashness on the part of the EO, no? If one is wrong, doesn’t that make one’s actions based on that error wrong as well?

Moreover, if the Bishop of Rome was acting ex cathedra and thus infallibly in this instance (the standard for infallibility seems somewhat flexible), the Eastern sees should have accepted the filioque even if they didn’t believe it or understand it to be fully Orthodox.

For your argument here to be valid, you would have to prove that the textual addition of filioque in the Latin Creed was an ex cathedra action of the Pope. An ex cathedra decree by definition applies to the universal Church. For your comment here to be valid, you have to prove that when the Pope added the filioque to the Creed, he intended to do so universally, and not just for the Latin Creed. Can you do that?

That they did neither but instead struck the popes from the diptychs would seem to support the Orthodox “low Petrine” view, I should think.

In my view, all that proves is that the EO were rash in their decisions (though the Latins did not exactly help the situation either!).

Btw, since you supported brother Josephdaniel’s relation of events, would you mind responding to the facts I gave to refute his (seemingly) Low Petrine interpretation of Church history?

Blessings,
Marduk