Universal Jursidiction

[Fevronia]

You ask why the Orthodox cannot be united with the Roman Catholics. The answer we have is simple, and that is that the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, as defined by the Council of Florence, the First Vatican Council, and the Second Vatican Council, is unacceptable to us. We do not accept the doctrine that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit’s subsistent being, we do not accept that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex-cathedra (or that he has universal immediate jurisdiction, and is the ordinary of the entire world), and we do not accept an ecclesiology of degrees of communion whereby everybody who is baptized outside of the confines of the Church enters into a state of impeded union with the Church. And as long as we disagree on these matters, we simply cannot be in union.

Reading through the thread, it seems like this is a very heated moment of the debate. So what I am about to ask (and state as observations) may be very infuriating but this is what my naive mind feels like asking.

In essence, the disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics stand or fall on the issue of Papal infallibility. If that is true, then even if the entire Orthodox Church does not understand how the other things you mentioned are true, assent must follow. Assent is not dependent on one being able to understand how the particular doctrine is true.

With respect to Papal Infallibility (or Papal jurisdiction), the main complaint (or only complaint) from the Orthodox perspective seems to be that such a defined role/power did not exist in the early Church (or till it was defined as such).

A simple Catholic answer would be that such a non-existence of a defined role is not an issue. The initial assent of any person who wants to be Christian to the Apostles and their successors must necessarily have been due to the naturally evident reason of them being certified to teach on the subject, first by Christ and then by the Apostles and their successors. No person, including the successors themselves would have known the scope of their authority, simply as Bishops/Patriarchs, till they had to define that as doctrine.

All of that doctrine comes after assent and can be done so when it is required. There is no logical necessity for it to be defined from the outset since assent does not require it.

So the fact that Papacy was defined 1000 years later or Infallibility was formally defined almost 2000 years later is not really an issue. All that needs to be shown, if anything, is that there is nothing that formally contradicts the implicit existence of such an office in the early Church. If I were to take a guess, I would say that this is almost impossible for an Orthodox or even Catholic to do. Any historical event may be given an interpretation such that the implicit existence of a Papacy like position is safe guarded (or from your perspective, to make it seem like the implicit existence of a Papacy is violated).

Doesn’t this make the main Orthodox reason for rejecting the original definition of the Papacy moot? Wouldn’t the Orthodox be in error for that very reason of rejecting the Papacy based on a logically invalid argument that it did not seem to exist to that capacity before its definition?

 

[Fevronia]

Also, I think one thing we can all agree on is that Rome did take the forefront on many resolving many issues, even that of the Patriarchates that fall outside of it. So there is at least glimpses of Rome’s power evident in history (even if it is not well defined at that time). Let us also not forget that the Patriarch of Constantinople (Paul IV) did fall in to the Iconoclastic heresy. Rome took the initiative to end the errors. But I have not heard of similar cases where Rome was having a doctrinal issue and other Patriarchates had to settle the matter in history. Surely, that seems too odd to be coincidence, right? At least we will have to say that the Orthodox Patriarchates were unstable and unable to decide on doctrine more often than Rome. Either way, the outlook is not that great for the Orthodox side, yes?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Wouldn’t the Orthodox be in error for that very reason of rejecting the Papacy based on a logically invalid argument that it did not seem to exist to that capacity before its definition?

No, because from our perspective your bishops as do not possess the authority to make definitions concerning the faith once-delivered or to act in this capacity as successors of the apostles, by virtue of them no longer being in unity with us. I would also have to disagree that doctrines of the Church in general are unfalsifiable by appeals to events prior to the formulation of those doctrines. All of the doctrines of the Church were in fact falsifiable by prior events, which is why they were hotly debated using evidence from the Scriptures and from the Holy Fathers.

 

[Fevronia]

No, because from our perspective your bishops as do not possess the authority to make definitions concerning the faith once-delivered or to act in this capacity as successors of the apostles, by virtue of them no longer being in unity with us. I would also have to disagree that doctrines of the Church in general are unfalsifiable by appeals to events prior to the formulation of those doctrines. All of the doctrines of the Church were in fact falsifiable by prior events, which is why they were hotly debated using evidence from the Scriptures and from the Holy Fathers.

I am not debating that this is your view now. It is certainly logical that the Orthodox hold this view now.

But what I am asking is regarding the initial rejection of the Papal doctrine. Was the Orthodox argument that the Papacy like position did not seem to exist prior its definition a valid logical argument?

Note that there is no real positive argument against the Papacy rather than an argument from absence on the part of the Orthodox. Or am I misinformed? By postive argument, I mean an argument of the form “Rome (Bishop of Rome) was in heresy at this time and Constantinople had to bail Rome out” type evidence. Also, how do you account for the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople was in heresy during the Iconoclasm?

I am also not denying falsifiability of the Papacy. But my point is rather that this attempt at falsifying should have positive arguments. Not arguments from absence. To argue from absence is not a logically valid argument in light of what I said about assent and defining roles.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am not debating that this is your view now. It is certainly logical that the Orthodox hold this view now.

But what I am asking is regarding the initial rejection of the Papal doctrine. Was the Orthodox argument that the Papacy like position did not seem to exist prior its definition a valid logical argument?

I do not think you are accurately presenting what the Orthodox argued at that time. In general they claimed both that the new papacy of the Gregorian Reforms violated the rights afforded to all bishops in canon law, and that the new popes (since at least 1012) were doctrinally unsound, because the included the filioque interpolation in the Creed, after Pope Leo III specifically forbade this in the ninth century. They objected to the changing nature of the papacy, because the orthodoxy of those who were doing so was already in doubt, and because it violated what had already been established in canon law.

Note that there is no real positive argument against the Papacy rather than an argument from absence on the part of the Orthodox. Or am I misinformed?

There are plenty of positive arguments, many of which have been discussed on this forum. The arguments center around the equality of all episcopal ordinations (i.e., popes are ordained bishops, just like all other bishops), the right for local bishops to manage their affairs without the intervention of external bishops, and for synods to manage their own affairs, granted by canon 2 of the First Council of Constantinople, the non-existence of a special petrine sacrament (which rules out any understanding that the papacy succeeds Peter in a sacramental fashion), and in general a different understanding of how Peter relates to the body of the episcopacy in general.

By postive argument, I mean an argument of the form “Rome (Bishop of Rome) was in heresy at this time and Constantinople had to bail Rome out” type evidence. Also, how do you account for the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople was in heresy during the Iconoclasm?

We do not need to account for that fact, because the Patriarch of Constantinople, though an exalted bishop still is only a bishop, and is capable of teaching errors. Individual bishops are not themselves indefectible.

I am also not denying falsifiability of the Papacy. But my point is rather that this attempt at falsifying should have positive arguments. Not arguments from absence. To argue from absence is not a logically valid argument in light of what I said about assent and defining roles.

I am inclined to disagree, because the Fathers themselves condemned innovations. The teaching authorities of the Church do not have the arbitrary authority to teach whatever it is that they please, but they are limited by the boundaries of what has been set down by the Holy Scriptures, the liturgical praxis of the Church, and the writings of the Holy Fathers, through which we learn the proper interpretation of the Scriptures (indeed, even St. Paul teaches us never to receive a teaching which we have not received from either the Scriptures or from Tradition, when he tells us in Galatians 1:8-9, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”)

Never, for example, could we make a declaration that the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Constantinople, or any other place is capable of speaking infallibly under certain conditions or that he has universal immediate jurisdiction, because the first doctrine would be an innovation, having been completely unknown beforehand (thus it would fail the Vincentian canon), while the latter plainly contradicts canon law.

 

[Fevronia]

I do not think you are accurately presenting what the Orthodox argued at that time. In general they claimed both that the new papacy of the Gregorian Reforms violated the rights afforded to all bishops in canon law, and that the new popes (since at least 1012) were doctrinally unsound, because the included the filioque interpolation in the Creed, after Pope Leo III specifically forbade this in the ninth century. They objected to the changing nature of the papacy, because the orthodoxy of those who were doing so was already in doubt, and because it violated what had already been established in canon law.

I apologize for any misrepresentation in advance. I assure you that it is not intentional and only because of my ignorance on some of the matters.

To get back to the topic, even if we were to grant that Canon Law was violated, this still does not help the Orthodox position. Canon Law is merely law and not doctrine. It does not impede against definition of a new office that is doctrinal in its nature. It just follows then that the existing Canon Law will have to be revised to better accommodate the new doctrine.

So I wish to grant your claim that Canon law was violated. But that does not help in anyway to give a logical basis for the Orthodox position, yes?

There are plenty of positive arguments, many of which have been discussed on this forum. The arguments center around the equality of all episcopal ordinations (i.e., popes are ordained bishops, just like all other bishops), the right for local bishops to manage their affairs without the intervention of external bishops, and for synods to manage their own affairs, granted by canon 2 of the First Council of Constantinople, the non-existence of a special petrine sacrament (which rules out any understanding that the papacy succeeds Peter in a sacramental fashion), and in general a different understanding of how Peter relates to the body of the episcopacy in general.

I admit I was not clear when I stated what I meant by positive arguments. If I may elaborate, the examples you cite are not positive arguments against Papacy. They are at most evidence that Canonical Laws existed that did not recognize a Papacy as defined later. That is not an issue since Canon Law is not fixed. It is merely a set of rules the Church follows to safe-guard and protect already defined doctrine. So if the Papacy was defined later, only an adjustment is performed.

So the only type of positive arguments that can be presented for both sides are of the type where Rome was in error and Constantinople stepped in to correct it and Rome accepted Constantinople as an authority (and also disproves that Rome is unwavering in its Orthodoxy) or vice versa. Because as it stands, there is ample evidence where the other patriarchates drifted to heresy while Rome had to step in to correct matters. But there is no historical record of a case to the opposite. Or am I wrong?

We do not need to account for that fact, because the Patriarch of Constantinople, though an exalted bishop still is only a bishop, and is capable of teaching errors. Individual bishops are not themselves indefectible.

This is good. At least we are in agreement on that historical event. Now the issue is with respect to whether there has been a case of similar nature against Rome. To my best knowledge, there has not been one. Has there been one?

I am inclined to disagree, because the Fathers themselves condemned innovations. The teaching authorities of the Church do not have the arbitrary authority to teach whatever it is that they please, but they are limited by the boundaries of what has been set down by the Holy Scriptures, the liturgical praxis of the Church, and the writings of the Holy Fathers, through which we learn the proper interpretation of the Scriptures…

I think you have to show the logical reason to think of the Papacy as an innovation though. Because the natural inclination of saying so because its definition comes later in history is not a logically valid argument.

As I showed you before, the initial assent to the Apostles and their successors is not based on a doctrinal/theological understanding of the authority of the teaching offices. It is based on a ***natural ***understanding of the authority of teaching offices.

Some of the powers that you define for the communion of Patriarchs (the infallibility Orthodox presume) for an example could be argued as not existing in the Church before. The idea of five Patriarchates itself could be argued as something that Apostles never foresaw. But these are moot points because the definition of the teaching offices fall under doctrine. You might say that these things were not that late. But how late is too late?

Since everyone agrees that doctrine can be defined properly and rigorously much later (as long as it does not contradict the evidence for the doctrine to be true), there is no problem with the fact that the authority and scope of the Bishop of Rome as the Pope was defined later. So your granted evidence that Canon Laws existed that contradicts the Papacy carries no weight because they do not contradict the truth of the doctrine. If it were hypothetically true that Papal infallibility and jurisdiction is correct, there is nothing in the pre-existing doctrine that contradicts it. Only what is in the Canon Law contradicts it. But since Canon law is not fixed, that is not an issue.

Can you present a laid out argument in terms of premises by which we can conclude that there is an issue with the Papacy being defined later in history? Perhaps that may help.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11206341:

Most unfortunate perception, as it appears your response is mistakenly inferring “equivocating (and you are being quite presumptuous…

” from genuine rational inquiry?
Equivocation is not genuine rational inquiry; it is a fallacy.

Rather regrettable your replies apparently continue to inaccurately deduce deliberate ambiguity when there is none?

SanctusPeccator;11206341:

Seems your interpretation [of Price’s commentary] would be undeniably correct had he unequivocally written “This fell short of a full condemnation, involving deposition and anathemization

,” in this instance?
There is no need for him to have written anathematization. There are multiple types of excommunication (even the Roman Catholic Church used to distinguish between major and minor excommunications), and Price there refers to major excommunication (which unlike the minor excommunication never fell into disuse), which is in effect equivalent to an anathematization (i.e., it cuts one off from the flock entirely). Being struck from the diptychs can be a disciplinary measure (although at other times it could also function as a condemnation, such as the removal of Patriarch Acacius name from the diptychs posthumously), akin to a minor excommunication, signalling that one has been removed from the sacramental life of the Church (in other words, that he is no longer in communion with the bishops and clergy who struck his name from the diptychs).

Given your own admission “there are multiple types of excommunication” [apropos of Price’s commentary], then it would be most improbable a professor from Heythrop College would not be aware of this also? As you correctly note the varying degrees of excommunication, rather inexplicable Price – let alone the extant acts of Constantinople II – would then neglect categorically stating the specific nature of an excommunication sensu lato had it purportedly occurred?

SanctusPeccator;11206341:

While essentially correct in modern

times, what evidence [from the extant acts of Constantinople II] explicitly states this was the precise meaning and identical understanding in 553?
The practice of the Church has always been this way (and really, it is quite fallacious to demand that we limit the scope of things to the acts of this council, since one needs to look at the general practice of the Church through history to see how important the diptychs were). The dyptichs contained the names of bishops (and of other notable Christians too, who may not have been of episcopal rank), both living and dead, to be read out and commemorated during the liturgy. To strike one’s name from the dyptichs was a “grave ecclesiastical penalty” (in the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia), and this was so because it literally meant that one’s name was deliberately being removed from the list of Christians who were prayed for during the liturgy, signalling a disruption of ecclesiastical communion.

How is it fallacious to legitimately ascertain the particular significance of the sacred diptychs within the specific historical context of 553 (especially since their liturgical use has gradually diminished over the centuries)? Also uncertain how citing the general remark “… a grave ecclesiastical penalty” (cf. 1909 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 23) explicitly substantiates your claim the only possible interpretation of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs necessarily entails excommunication?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you not think it perhaps to be slightly presumptuous that you are telling me what God will say to me on the day of judgment? Leave what is God’s to God, and what pertains to men to men.

Thank you for taking a few moments to respond. I know you have your hands full with the others you are interacting with.

I understand your feelings, but don’t you think it is reasonable to assume that God will ask us about how we responded to what He taught and commanded? But we can move on from this. I don’t want to get off on a tangent.

At any rate, I disagree with your interpretation of Christ’s prayer for unity, because to assert that the Church is not one is to deny the efficacy of Christ’s prayer. Christ, in other words, did not pray that 2000 years in the future, the various groups which would have by then sprung up in his name (but without having received his commission) should be one, but rather he gave his prayer as an earnest of unity to the Church, by which he vouchsafed that the Church throughout the ages might remain one.

I’m not sure I’m denying the efficacy of His prayer so much as I am recognizing that He continues to honor our free will. But I agree that Jesus did pray for unity within the one Church He promised to build. Catholics acknowledge that all who are baptized are in some communion with the Church even if it is imperfect; I see from what have written below that the Orthodox do not.

More importantly, to what degree of unity are we called? Consider these two verses:

Romans 15:5-6
May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

Either I am in His Church, or I am not, but to say that I have not heeded Christ’s call to unity is not the purview of man (for it encroaches upon what is God’s alone to judge), and I frankly do not believe that it is consistent with the meaning of Christ’s prayer for unity for He did not call for a false unity which does not proceed from unity in faith.

In light of the verses above, I think Paul was clearly making judgment about unity and disunity in the Church. Additionally, Paul clearly authorized this type of judgment when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 5:12
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

Paul is telling the Corinthians that they ARE to judge those in the Church. May we assume this teaching applies to us, also? Thus, it IS the purview of man to judge whether you are in unity with the Church or not, and more specifically, where you stand with regard to the Chair of Peter.

You ask why the Orthodox cannot be united with the Roman Catholics. The answer we have is simple, and that is that the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, as defined by the Council of Florence, the First Vatican Council, and the Second Vatican Council, is unacceptable to us. We do not accept the doctrine that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit’s subsistent being, we do not accept that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex-cathedra (or that he has universal immediate jurisdiction, and is the ordinary of the entire world), and we do not accept an ecclesiology of degrees of communion whereby everybody who is baptized outside of the confines of the Church enters into a state of impeded union with the Church. And as long as we disagree on these matters, we simply cannot be in union.

So, three major doctrinal points apart and wholesale rejection of three councils. I appreciate the clarification, because I was under the apparently mistaken impression that we had come to some joint understanding concerning the filioque.

Just one more question: when someone receives a trinitarian water baptism in a Protestant Church, is that baptism valid? Has that person been baptized into Christ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

By the way, I assume you are familiar with the work of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consul*tation?

Their joint statement can be viewed here:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

What is your opinion of this document and these efforts?

“According to Bishop Kallistos Ware, many Orthodox (whatever may be the doctrine and practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church itself) hold that, in broad outline, to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son amounts to the same thing as to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, a view accepted also by the Greeks who signed the act of union at the Council of Florence.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Rather regrettable your replies apparently continue to inaccurately deduce deliberate ambiguity when there is none?

I am frankly disliking the tone that you have begun to take with me, and I think that it is time perhaps that we end our correspondence.

Given your own admission “there are multiple types of excommunication” [apropos of Price’s commentary], then it would be most improbable a professor from Heythrop College would not be aware of this also? As you correctly note the varying degrees of excommunication, rather inexplicable Price – let alone the extant acts of Constantinople II – would then neglect categorically stating the specific nature of an excommunication sensu lato had it purportedly occurred?

No, this is an entirely unreasonable presupposition, that Price or the Acts should be completely precise in everything they write. Even philosophers, when they try to be precise will inevitably make vague statements because of the way language works. The acts themselves had no need to mention any type of excommunication, because “excommunication sensu lato” includes being struck from the diptychs, which signals the breaking of Eucharistic communion and fellowship with a bishop.

How is it fallacious to legitimately ascertain the particular significance of the sacred diptychs within the specific historical context of 553 (especially since their liturgical use has gradually diminished over the centuries)?

Perhaps their liturgical use has diminished in churches which do not hold to tradition, but I can guarantee you that the episcopal diptychs remain in liturgical use in Orthodoxy. To determine the context of 553, it is necessary to look at the centuries surrounding that time period in order to ascertain what removing names from the diptychs means, because the council is obviously not going to explain what an action means to an audience which understands its implications. Removing a name from the diptychs, as far as we can tell was always a signal of the breaking of ecclesiastical communion (and in the case of the dead, a sign of condemnation). For example, when Patriarch Acacius wished to break communion with Rome (because Pope Felix III had condemned Peter Mongus), he did so by striking Pope Felix’ name from the diptychs. When Patriarch Euphemius reversed Acacius’ decision, he did so by personally striking out Peter Mongus’ name from the diptychs (breaking communion with Peter Mongus) and restoring Pope Felix’ name to the diptychs. And this was only some sixty years before the Second Council of Constantinople. It should be clear that when a bishop strikes another bishop’s name from the diptychs, he means it as a grave act, declaring that the bishop is not one of the faithful to be prayed for during the liturgy, and also declaring that eucharistic communion between the two bishops is broken.

Also uncertain how citing the general remark “… a grave ecclesiastical penalty” (cf. 1909 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 23) explicitly substantiates your claim the only possible interpretation of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs necessarily entails excommunication?

If eucharistic communion has been severed, then that means that the one whose name has been struck from the diptychs is, from the perspective of those who struck his name, excommunicate, for he has been excluded from their mutual and common celebration of the sacraments, and most especially the Holy Eucharist.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11209171:

Rather regrettable your replies apparently continue to inaccurately deduce deliberate ambiguity when there is none?

I am frankly disliking the tone that you have begun to take with me, and I think that it is time perhaps that we end our correspondence.

Oddly baffling how your responses erroneously infer some nonexistent “tone” from thorough intellectual scrutiny?

SanctusPeccator;11209171:

Given your own admission “there are multiple types of excommunication

” [apropos of Price’s commentary], then it would be most improbable a professor from Heythrop College would not be aware of this also? As you correctly note the varying degrees of excommunication, rather inexplicable Price – let alone the extant acts of Constantinople II – would then neglect categorically stating the specific nature of an excommunication sensu lato had it purportedly occurred?
No, this is an entirely unreasonable presupposition, that Price or the Acts should be completely precise in everything they write. Even philosophers, when they try to be precise will inevitably make vague statements because of the way language works. The acts themselves had no need to mention any type of excommunication, because “excommunication sensu lato” includes being struck from the diptychs, which signals the breaking of Eucharistic communion and fellowship with a bishop.

How is it “…an entirely unreasonable presupposition” to intelligently seek precise clarification on matters of theological controversy? If one were to adopt such an imprecise standard, why even complain over one painstaking iota which distinguishes ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) from ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) then?

SanctusPeccator;11209171:

How is it fallacious to legitimately ascertain the particular significance of the sacred diptychs within the specific historical context of 553 (especially since their liturgical use has gradually diminished over the centuries)?

Perhaps their liturgical use has diminished in churches which do not hold to tradition, but I can guarantee you that the episcopal diptychs remain in liturgical use in Orthodoxy. To determine the context of 553, it is necessary to look at the centuries surrounding that time period in order to ascertain what removing names from the diptychs means, because the council is obviously not going to explain what an action means to an audience which understands its implications. Removing a name from the diptychs, as far as we can tell was always a signal of the breaking of ecclesiastical communion (and in the case of the dead, a sign of condemnation). For example, when Patriarch Acacius wished to break communion with Rome (because Pope Felix III had condemned Peter Mongus), he did so by striking Pope Felix’ name from the diptychs. When Patriarch Euphemius reversed Acacius’ decision, he did so by personally striking out Peter Mongus’ name from the diptychs (breaking communion with Peter Mongus) and restoring Pope Felix’ name to the diptychs. And this was only some sixty years before the Second Council of Constantinople. It should be clear that when a bishop strikes another bishop’s name from the diptychs, he means it as a grave act, declaring that the bishop is not one of the faithful to be prayed for during the liturgy, and also declaring that eucharistic communion between the two bishops is broken.

Does not the underlined provisional clause “as far as we can tell…” conditionally qualify the apparent absolute certainty of your assertion? If the exact connotation of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs was plainly evident, then why would Protopresbyter Georges V. Florovsky seemingly evaluate the situation somewhat circumspectively?
“It is clear that from the date of Justinian’s ‘minute’ formam] Pope Vigilius was considered deposed by the council. That his name was removed from the diptychs certainly constitutes deposition and may well be interpreted as excommunication. Whether the Fifth Ecumenical Council considered this deposition only and not excommunication is subject to controversy” (The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century, p. 162).
While your own responses have previously advanced the claims Vigilius was unquestionably excommunicated but not automatically deposed, Protopresbyter Florovsky has evidently transposed the assertions? Clearly seems a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction?

SanctusPeccator;11209171:

Also uncertain how citing the general remark “… a grave ecclesiastical penalty

” (cf. 1909 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 23) explicitly substantiates your claim the only possible interpretation of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs necessarily entails excommunication?
If eucharistic communion has been severed, then that means that the one whose name has been struck from the diptychs is, from the perspective of those who struck his name, excommunicate, for he has been excluded from their mutual and common celebration of the sacraments, and most especially the Holy Eucharist.

Unless explicit statements [from the extant acts of Constantinople II] are cited categorically stating the precise canonical nature of Vigilius’ “grave ecclesiastical penalty” in this matter, seems logically evident your claim remains solely a deductive inference instead of an established fact?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Oddly baffling how your responses erroneously infer some nonexistent “tone” from thorough intellectual scrutiny?

Consider this the end of our correspondence. I am not interested in corresponding with the discourteous.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Consider this the end of our correspondence. I am not interested in corresponding with the discourteous.

Funny…you weren’t so quick to end your discussion with me when you thought you had the upper hand early on in the thread.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11209736:

Oddly baffling how your responses erroneously infer some nonexistent “tone

” from thorough intellectual scrutiny?
Consider this the end of our correspondence. I am not interested in corresponding with the discourteous.

Rather tragic given an apparent inability to provide clear demonstrations of any alleged “discourteous” remarks throughout these exchanges? As your personal claims remain unable to be conclusively substantiated with any explicit statements regarding the specific canonical nature of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs, this would evidently indicate a tacit concession [of failure] from your end? Notwithstanding the disappointing conclusion to our interactions, your attempted efforts and time expenditure are still sincerely appreciated Cavaradossi. Perhaps there are less exasperated posters from the Orthodox Faith who can offer irrefutably conclusive answers to these honest questions?

 

[Fevronia]

Consider this the end of our correspondence. I am not interested in corresponding with the discourteous.

Hello,

I was not discourteous to you (though I apologize if I came across that way in my posts because of something I said).

So can you reply to my post in

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11208873&postcount=419

If you feel that its a waste of your time, I understand.

To summarize that post of mine, my objections were as follows

1. Even if we admit a contradiction of the Papal office with Canon Law, that is not an obstacle against the definition of a doctrinal position on the Papal office. Also, the definition of such an office in doctrine is not a contradiction of Canon Law. It is only the exercise of the defined office that contradicts Canon Law and that simply means that the existing Canon Law had to be modified to accommodate the truths that have been defined.
2. There are no positive arguments against the Papal doctrine. By positive arguments I mean the type which shows Rome had fallen in to heresy and accepted correction by the other Patriarchs. We only have positive arguments to the opposite where the other patriarchs fall in to heresy and Rome steps in to correct them.
3. The idea that the definition of the Papal office comes in late is not a problem because that is a relative matter. There is no prior understanding as to how late it too late for it to be defined.
4. Arguments from absence are not conclusive against the Papacy since there are already positive arguments to suggest its existence (the fact that Rome was always unwavering in its Orthodoxy while the other Patriarchs were all over the place).
5. To say the doctrine is complete innovation is also incorrect. If the Scripture passages cited in favor of the doctrine and the particular interpretation of them is correct, then it does follow that the doctrine is not an innovation. It was merely defined more rigorously at a later time.
6. In conclusion, all of this shows that the Orthodox lacked a logical basis for its opposition to the definition of the Papacy. Therefore it suggests that the Orthodox are in error for being disobedient to Rome (or to the truth) and basing their entire opposition on an illogical basis to begin with. Does it not?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Rather tragic given an apparent inability to provide clear demonstrations of any alleged “discourteous” remarks throughout these exchanges? As your personal claims remain unable to be conclusively substantiated with any explicit statements regarding the specific canonical nature of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs, this would evidently indicate a tacit concession [of failure] from your end? Notwithstanding the disappointing conclusion to our interactions, your attempted efforts and time expenditure are still sincerely appreciated Cavaradossi. Perhaps there are less exasperated posters from the Orthodox Faith who can offer irrefutably conclusive answers to these honest questions?

“irrefutably conclusive answers?” What evidence would you accept? Cavaradossi provided a wealth of information. Your posts have a hint of passive-aggressiveness that is off putting, which you couch in academic language. “your attempted efforts” is one example of this: Attempted? How about just effort? He/She put in a lot of time to answer you, and while you claim that the effort is “appreciated” it is followed by your closing statement which is a backhanded swipe at Cavaradossi.

Again, I ask…What evidence would you accept? Obviously you doubt the solidity of Cavaradossi’s sources…perhaps there is no “Magic Bullet” argument or Primary Source out there. I have been lurking on this thread for a long time, and I think many people can draw their own conclusions.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Funny…you weren’t so quick to end your discussion with me when you thought you had the upper hand early on in the thread.

“I’ve always suspected that there are Orthodox who glory in the wound created by their schism. Now I know.”

Is what you posted or the quote I just posted (or your post #368) an example of Christian Charity?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Hello,

I was not discourteous to you (though I apologize if I came across that way in my posts because of something I said).

So can you reply to my post in

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11208873&postcount=419

If you feel that its a waste of your time, I understand.

To summarize that post of mine, my objections were as follows

1. Even if we admit a contradiction of the Papal office with Canon Law, that is not an obstacle against the definition of a doctrinal position on the Papal office. Also, the definition of such an office in doctrine is not a contradiction of Canon Law. It is only the exercise of the defined office that contradicts Canon Law and that simply means that the existing Canon Law had to be modified to accommodate the truths that have been defined.
2. There are no positive arguments against the Papal doctrine. By positive arguments I mean the type which shows Rome had fallen in to heresy and accepted correction by the other Patriarchs. We only have positive arguments to the opposite where the other patriarchs fall in to heresy and Rome steps in to correct them.
3. The idea that the definition of the Papal office comes in late is not a problem because that is a relative matter. There is no prior understanding as to how late it too late for it to be defined.
4. Arguments from absence are not conclusive against the Papacy since there are already positive arguments to suggest its existence (the fact that Rome was always unwavering in its Orthodoxy while the other Patriarchs were all over the place).
5. To say the doctrine is complete innovation is also incorrect. If the Scripture passages cited in favor of the doctrine and the particular interpretation of them is correct, then it does follow that the doctrine is not an innovation. It was merely defined more rigorously at a later time.
6. In conclusion, all of this shows that the Orthodox lacked a logical basis for its opposition to the definition of the Papacy. Therefore it suggests that the Orthodox are in error for being disobedient to Rome (or to the truth) and basing their entire opposition on an illogical basis to begin with. Does it not?

I definitely don’t presume to speak for Cavaradossi, but you are approaching this from the premise that Papal claims are valid. We Orthodox reject the very idea of a special “Petrine Ministry” as it relates to Rome. Rome is special because the blood of St. Peter and Paul consecrated that ground (and a much lesser reason is that it was the imperial capital)…for Orthodox, that is enough…but Rome took it further.

What Canon Law says or doesn’t say is irrelevant because there is no special “Petrine Ministry” to argue about. For Orthodox, the very idea of the “Papal Office” is a Western Innovation. You dismiss the problem of the doctrine coming later as a relative matter but the Church Fathers did not view the Papacy the same way Pope Pius IX viewed it. This is no small thing. Your point in #5 hinges on the Latin interpretation…again, not an ironclad position.

I apologize if you feel my reply was intrusive, and I hope that Cavaradossi can give you a much heftier response than I have given.

 

[manualman]

I confess in advance to hit and run tactics when I enter at page 29, but I wonder if anyone has yet addressed the issue of Peter’s vision and subsequent release of Mosaic Law dietary restrictions.

Can you even imagine how utterly shocking it must have been for early Christians (still mostly Jews, I suspect) to hear this? If Peter did NOT have universal jurisdiction, shouldn’t such an enormous change in religious practice have required more collegiality among the apostles first? As “first among equals” shouldn’t he have recounted his vision to the other apostles in order for them all to discern the validity of that vision before he made such a unilateral announcement? Isn’t it outrageously reckless of Peter to have made such a sweeping change for ALL believers in ALL jurisdictions without the prior consent of the other apostles?

I’m curious how folks reconcile that account with their own view of Peter as “first among equals.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Funny…you weren’t so quick to end your discussion with me when you thought you had the upper hand early on in the thread.

If you will notice, I already protested his rudeness twice before. Since he left it a third time unamended, without even ever affirming to the contrary that he intended to be civil, I have nothing left to say to him. This remark itself is quite uncivil, and if you too will treat me uncivilly, I suppose that I shall have nothing remaining to say to you either.