What does Eastern Orthodoxy offer that Eastern Catholicism doesn't?

[Cavaradossi]

Wow. It’s been interesting. I had no idea so much
bitterness existed within the Orthodox.
But bitterness since the posters have managed to
attack everything in the RC including the Body and Blood
of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its “mechanistics” etc.
That is where I depart as a refuse to sling His Body
and Blood back and forth with you. Your willingness
though to attack our Eucharist or anything else held sacred within
the RC displays quite frankly
everything I find unacceptable and dishonest in Orthodoxy and
why I will not visit an Orthodox Church.

Peace.

I really see no reason for such a disproportionately exasperated response. There is a certain truth to the claim that we do not conceive of the sacraments in completely similar fashions, because a very hylomorphic conception of the sacraments has held sway over Latin theology since the time of the schoolmen, whereas within Orthodoxy, a hylomorphic conception has not such a strong influence.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I thought it was St. Thomas Aquinas, or at least that many people trace it back to him

Mistakenly. St. John of Damascus, actually.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Freedom from purgatory which is good and bad thing! lol

Lol. I see the idea of Purgatory as a mercy

The Melkite Greek Catholics I know & some other Eastern Orthodox tell me there Church within the Catholic Church doesn’t NOT teach Purgatory - they have the same beliefs as Orthodox on this issue…do you also find that to be true in your experience?

 

[sharpag]

Wow. It’s been interesting. I had no idea so much
bitterness existed within the Orthodox.
But bitterness since the posters have managed to
attack everything in the RC including the Body and Blood
of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its “mechanistics” etc.
That is where I depart as a refuse to sling His Body
and Blood back and forth with you. Your willingness
though to attack our Eucharist or anything else held sacred within
the RC displays quite frankly
everything I find unacceptable and dishonest in Orthodoxy and
why I will not visit an Orthodox Church.

Peace.

I didn’t mean to be offensive or to denigrate the Catholic understanding of the real presence or transubstantiation. However, there is definitely more of a Scholastic understanding of the Eucharist (and the sacraments in general) in the West which, in my opinion, comes across as rather mechanistic when compared to the East; and, I don’t think that is an unfair assessment in any way. Lastly, as my post likely contributed to your belief of bitterness existing within the Orthodox towards Catholics I should point out that though I have been attending an Orthodox Church I am not Orthodox nor am I a catechumen. So any ill will my post created should not be directed to the Orthodox, but to me as an individual pseudo-Methodist.

The one thing I took for granted was the idea that the EO churches would openly admit that we (catholic church) have valid sacraments, the very essence and source of grace. However, it’s important to remember that they really don’t define much of anything, which was one of the reasons why I steered clear of those churches…

I really don’t see why either communion needs to have an opinion about the other. One is either part of the Church or outside of it; if the Church (whatever that may be) wants to classify or rank ecclesiastical bodies outside of itself that’s their own prerogative, but I see no reason why this needs to be reciprocated. Again, the concept of valid sacraments developed outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would no more expect the Orthodox to have an opinion of that than for a Catholic to have an opinion on whether or not one should remain standing during Mass.

Lastly, let’s not play the “my church has more dogmas than your church game.” It cuts both ways.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Regarding Pope Honorius, Robert Sungenis refutes the claims hands down. Give it a looksy if interested…

youtube.com/watch?v=avL6vJw5ZBE

Great! Thanks for the link. The speaker said that 5 conditions have to be meet in order for a Pope to speak Infallibly - were those 5 conditions outlined in Vatican 1?

 

[josie_L]

That’s nice, but I’ve actually read the acts of the council and have even posted excerpts (in English translation) on this very forum before. Contrary to whatever is claimed on Wikipedia (which is hardly a reliable source on less well-known topics, such as Church Councils), the Senate at the council only agreed to refuse to seat Dioscoros for the reason that charges were going to be brought against him.

From post # 84:

Dear Cavaradossi,

From what I’ve read (both Coptic and Catholic sources), what went on is somewhere between your claim and PeaceinChrist’s claim. What actually went on was that there was a compromise. The Papal legates wanted to exclude Pope St. Dioscorus from the Council altogether, with no vote or seat. The Council did not expel the Pope, but neither did they allow him to vote (he did not have the usual seat of a Patriarch, but was made to sit among the other bishops). So it is not as if the Council was altogether unwilling to follow the Pope’s exhortations. I like how an EO once put it - the Pope had great authority, but it was by virtue of auctoritas, not necessarily the potestas that we know of today. Vatican 1 did not present a new ecclesiology. It merely encoded as potestas the authority that the Pope of Rome hast always had by virtue of auctoritas. Of course, this potestas is extremely exaggerated by certain Catholics (in pretended support of the papacy) and by certain non-Catholics (a reductio ad absurdum argument in opposition to the papacy)

There is also post #86 which you should refer to.

to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

I suppose you did not actually read what I wrote. You are reading the post-Vatican I/II definition of an ecumenical council as a general council of the Church in conjunction with the Pope back into the situation after Ephesus II. If it were a common article of faith that the Pope possessed the power to render any synod null and void, it should be true that in the two years between Ephesus II and Chalcedon, Ephesus II would not have gained widespread acceptance as an ecumenical council. In fact, there would have been no need to call the Council of Chalcedon at all. But this is all contrafactual, for not only was the council called to solve this problem, but the council did not accept Pope Leo’s refusal to approve of the council as reason enough to overturn the council, but rather conducted its own investigation into the minutes of the council in order to determine whether the council was conducted properly.

Actually the tome of Pope St. Leo was already accepted by most of the Church prior to Chalcedon , so I’m not sure how “widespread” acceptance of “Ephesus II” was??? Moreover, Pope St. Leo was the one to initiate the call for a council after the debacle in Ephesus (having received appeals from both St. Flavian and Theodoret), i.e., in his letters to Emperor Theodosius and St. Pulcheria. In fact in one of his letters to St. Pulcheria (LETTER LXXIX), he wrote:

II. He thanks her for her aid to the catholic cause, and explains his wishes about the restoration of the lapsed bishops.

Your clemency must know, therefore, that the whole church of Rome is highly grateful for all your faithful deeds, whether that you have with pious zeal helped our representatives throughout and brought back the catholic priests, who had been expelled from their churches by an unjust sentence, or that you have procured the restoration with due honour of the remains of that innocent and holy priest, Flavian, of holy memory, to the church, which he ruled so well. In all which things assuredly your glory is increased manifold, so long as you venerate the saints according to their deserts, and are anxious that the thorns and weeds should be removed from the Lord’s field. But we learn as well from the account of our deputies as from that of my brother and fellow-bishop, Anatolius, whom you graciously recommend to me, that certain bishops crave reconciliation for those who seem to have given their consent to matters of heresy, and desire catholic communion for them: to whose request we grant effect on condition that the boon of peace should not be vouch-soled them till, our deputies acting in concert with the aforesaid bishop, they are corrected, and with their own hand condemn their evil doings; because our Christian religion requires boil that true justice should constrain the obstinate, and love not reject the penitent.

Dated April 13, in the consulship of the illustrious Adelfius (451).

It seems that Pope St. Leo was instructing Empress (St.) Pulcheria on what should be done with respect to bishops who were hoping for reconciliation vis a vis their actions at Ephesus (recollect that no Western bishops, with the exception of the legates, participated in Ephesus as such these bishops were more than likely from the East). Moreover, in a letter addressed to the Emperor, Marcian, Pope St. Leo indicates again those bishops who wished reconciliation or had returned to the Church (all prior to Chalcedon):

II. The points to be settled are only which of the lapsed shall be restored, and on what terms.

But it is most inopportune that through the foolishness of a few we should be brought once more into hazardous opinions, and to the warfare of carnal disputes, as if the wrangle was to be revived, and we had to settle whether Eutyches held blasphemous views, and whether Dioscorus gave wrong judgment, who in condemning Flavian of holy memory struck his own death-blow, and involved the simpler folk in the same destruction. And now that many, as we have ascertained, have betoken themselves to the means of amendment, and entreat forgiveness for their weak hastiness, we have to determine not the character of the Faith, but whose prayers we shall receive, and on what terms. And hence that most religious anxiety which you deign to feel for the proclamation of a Synod, shall have fully and timely put before it all that I judge pertinent to the needs of the case, by means of the deputies who will with all speed, if God permit, reach your Grace.

Dated the 23rd of April in the consulship of the illustrious Adelfius (451).

It seems that many bishops involved in Ephesus sought to amend and seek forgiveness for their actions, so again, I don’t see how you can claim that Ephesus was widespread (being that the West didn’t even participate in the council).

To be continued. . . .

 

[Cavaradossi]

From post # 84:

With all due respect to Marduk, I would disagree, because my claim is simply restating what the acts state. The legates demanded that Dioscoros not be seated. The Senate demanded that charges be brought against Dioscoros if he was to be denied a seat. Then we see suddenly that Dioscoros is seated in the center (which is where one who is sitting for judgment would be seated, rather than where the judges would be seated), while a complain is read out against him by Eusebius of Dorylaeum.

I must especially disagree with his contention that the Roman legates wished to exclude Dioscoros entirely from the council. As their goal was to condemn him for his conduct at Ephesus II, it would have been inconceivable for the Romans to demand that the one to be judged should be denied the ability to hear the plaint against him or to speak in his own defense. Indeed, I believe that Marduk is not correct in interpreting having a seat as being somehow different from having a vote. Only those seated as judges could have a vote, and allowing Dioscoros to be seated as one of the council fathers is what the legates objected to. However, the senate first demanded a reason to deny Dioscoros a seat, which is to say that it was not acceptable to the senate that he should be denied a seat based on the whims of the Pope or his legates alone.

 

[josie_L]

I suppose you did not actually read what I wrote. You are reading the post-Vatican I/II definition of an ecumenical council as a general council of the Church in conjunction with the Pope back into the situation after Ephesus II. If it were a common article of faith that the Pope possessed the power to render any synod null and void, it should be true that in the two years between Ephesus II and Chalcedon, Ephesus II would not have gained widespread acceptance as an ecumenical council. In fact, there would have been no need to call the Council of Chalcedon at all. But this is all contrafactual, for not only was the council called to solve this problem, but the council did not accept Pope Leo’s refusal to approve of the council as reason enough to overturn the council, but rather conducted its own investigation into the minutes of the council in order to determine whether the council was conducted properly.

The pope does not have the power to render a synod null and void, that being said, a council cannot be considered ecumenical without his confirmation, being that he is head of the visible church and the only patriarch of the West.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not really. The issue was not ordination of a bishop (“legitimate and licit exercise of episcopal orders,” as you put it), but the recognition of patriarchy. Two different things. Pope St. Damasus never doubted or questioned that St. Meletius was a bishop. What happened was that the Roman Pope summoned both claimants to Rome to settle the matter, but St. Meletius was in exile at the time, and Paulinus was the only one that showed up. In the absence in Antioch of any other claimant, the Pope granted Paulinus the charge. But the letter of the Pope made absolutely no deprecatory remark about St. Meletius in his letter accepting Paulinus (despite Paulinus’ attempts to demean St. Meletius character to the Pope). St. Meletius and Pope St. Demasus were never out of communion, proven by the fact that a local Synod held under St. Meletius appealed to Pope St. Damasus on the issue of the Holy Spirit, the Pope’s very response being a basis for the Secondf Ecum’s eventual teaching on the Holy Spirit. The ONLY “proof” often offered for the CLAIM that Rome and Antioch were out of communion was the Pope’s acceptance of Paulinus. But, as noted, the Pope only accepted Paulinus because he was the only one, at the time that the Pope considered the matter, that could be present in Antioch to lead that Church, since St. Meletius was in exile. He did not accept Paulinus in explicit rejection of St. Meletius.

I would like to request a source for these claims.

Not true. The Council of Ephesus’ letter to Pope St. Celestine asking for his confirmation explicitly affirmed, “The zeal of your holiness for piety, and your own care for the right faith…are worthy of all admiration. For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own care.”

Confirmation here is clearly used in the sense of “strengthening,” not in the sense of ratifying, as Churches are not things which can be ratified. You did nothing at all to address the issue of the Formula of Union of 433 and how Ephesus before then did not gain the acceptance of the Churches of Antioch and the East, despite the Pope’s endorsement of the synod.

I don’t see any mention here of “suburbicarian Italy.” With all due respect, perhaps you are imposing a bit of the “anachronistic late second millenium ecclesiology” of the EO on the matter?

Or perhaps you are just unaware of how the Church functioned in the year 431? It is a well known fact that the Church of Rome’s extra-episcopal jurisdiction only spread out to suburbicarian Italy, as Northern Italy fell under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Milan (who at that time was autocephalous, being elected and consecrated directly by his own synod, Dvornik touches on this, I believe). The Pope, in ratifying councils, could only speak reliably for Suburbicarian Italy, as his own holy synod only encompassed that region. That is why the Norther Italians felt free to reject the Second Council of Constantinople, even after it gained Papal approval, because they operated under a different holy synod than Rome and Suburbicarian Italy.

 

[josie_L]

I didn’t mean to be offensive or to denigrate the Catholic understanding of the real presence or transubstantiation. However, there is definitely more of a Scholastic understanding of the Eucharist (and the sacraments in general) in the West which, in my opinion, comes across as rather mechanistic when compared to the East; and, I don’t think that is an unfair assessment in any way. Lastly, as my post likely contributed to your belief of bitterness existing within the Orthodox towards Catholics I should point out that though I have been attending an Orthodox Church I am not Orthodox nor am I a catechumen. So any ill will my post created should not be directed to the Orthodox, but to me as an individual pseudo-Methodist.

Yes, it is an unfair assessment especially when you do not take into consideration the fact that the Eucharist was defined and/or terms such as transubstantiation were applied because of denunciations made with regard to the real presence, i.e., there were those denying the real presence and as such the Church formulated and delineated doctrines more thoroughly, if it seems mechanistic than so be it, but then again, one can make the same claim of the countless delineations made with regard to the Trinity (hence the many heresies). Scholasticism, believe it or not, is not a Latin invention.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I must assume that I have no idea what you mean by “infallible”. Do you mean they’ve been infallibly defined?.

Was I defining infallible? No of course not New Advent will guide you there. Point was they are "required belief " in the EO? But you don’t know how many Sacraments there are?

Which one of the seven can we disregard in the EO???

We don’t call them “Mysteries” without a reason

What are the good reasons and there ARE or ARE NOT Seven, according to the EO?

You were connecting Gods mysteries to the sacraments, in which you claim they are called “mysteries” for GOOD REASON. Then you connected mystery to the Sacrament and made the statement they are different in your congregation. How so? How were they instituted by God differently in your congregation?

And which do you not have to believe?

I said what a “Mystery” is. Is that the same as the RC definition?

But you didn’t define YOUR understanding of a mystery. What is a mystery and how does it relate to the Sacraments in the EO? And which is required belief. I’m not here to reconcile infallible with your congregation.

I only want to know “your understanding” as I am asking from your eastern mindset. Obviously there is much different thinking being my point and one you seem to agree with as you state here…

Every priest and Bishop I’ve ever spoken to about/heard speak on the subject has said something quite different.

Did they ALL say something different or all the same? What did they say the same? That quote suggests all have a different “opinion”

As you say, you can speak to one of the various Priests in the EO as you suggested with many various opinions.

The Point is you have at least seven Sacraments clearly pointed out on EO sights and as mentioned on this thread. And YES your original post needed “clarification” which is “why” I bought it up. You said and very “unclearly”…

First a Patriarch saying something doesn’t make it doctrine, but most importantly, what he said doesn’t disagree with what I said .

Right…

Every priest and Bishop I’ve ever spoken to about/heard speak on the subject has said something quite different.

I get that, but you were “unclear”. As to this point your whole conversation is.

As I have pointed out, this conversation is another example of the issue in the EO.

You mean your quote of Patriarch Jeremiah? First a Patriarch saying something doesn’t make it doctrine, but most importantly, what he said doesn’t disagree with what I said (and in fact agrees with what I believe that I didn’t say). I’m not making the argument some have made that there are only two.

Thanks for the clarity. so there are at LEAST 7 and why is that? Can I only believe is TWO? Why can’t I only believe in two if I join your congregation?

Not strange at all to me, its exactly what I been saying right along here. You have many beliefs which differ, no consensus and lack of consistency and you said…

While Seven are generally accepted, especially when speaking with Westerners, they have never been doctrinally numbered…

So I can join the EO and pick and choose of the seven? And if not why not? Do I have to believe Baptism is for the remission of sin?

I’m saying that we don’t number them. I’ll expand on that now, most (and everyone, including those priests and bishops I’ve spoken to, and as that quote of Patriarch Jeremiah says) would say there are more than seven…

I want to talk about the “SEVEN” do I have to believe there are “SEVEN”? I don’t care about the suggestion there are “OTHERS” you haven’t clarified the SEVEN or the need and requirement of their belief and why they are required if they are, nor have you defined “mystery” and its relation?

DO I HAVE TO BELIEVE BAPTISM is for the remission of sin? Its in the Creed? Why does Romanidies state otherwise?

We may have discussed the issue of the sacraments/mysteries, but I certainly have never said that Baptism is not a Holy Mystery…

I know what you said, and so do YOU! Is it required in the EO I have to believe Baptism is for the remission of sin? Yes or No?

If you’re going to use what I’ve said in the past against me at least have the decency to quote it, with a link so I can actually see the context…

No need I’m being polite. Its the same conversation. If your “concerned” about the posts I will find them and post them. My point isn’t a focus on what you said, but on the very idea there are many beliefs, YES or NO? You have NO CONCENSUS?

Baptism and Romanidies is an example YES or NO?

I’ll give you “another” perfect example. What dose the EO mean by the particular judgment and general judgment. Does “everyone” of the priests and Bishops have something different to say here also? Is it required belief to what you didn’t define? When can I find this understanding?

Perhaps even admit I was wrong. However on this I’m certainly not wrong, I certainly have never, and would never deny the place of Baptism in the Church, as a Holy Mystery of Christ.

How many mysteries are you required to believe and what is a mystery and why must you believe it? This is not an answer…

Answer “AT LEAST SEVEN” but there may be more? Is that a clear answer I would want to depend on for my Salvation?

 

[Peter_J]

I didn’t mean to be offensive or to denigrate the Catholic understanding of the real presence or transubstantiation. However, there is definitely more of a Scholastic understanding of the Eucharist (and the sacraments in general) in the West which, in my opinion, comes across as rather mechanistic when compared to the East; and, I don’t think that is an unfair assessment in any way. Lastly, as my post likely contributed to your belief of bitterness existing within the Orthodox towards Catholics I should point out that though I have been attending an Orthodox Church I am not Orthodox nor am I a catechumen. So any ill will my post created should not be directed to the Orthodox, but to me as an individual pseudo-Methodist.

I really don’t see why either communion needs to have an opinion about the other. One is either part of the Church or outside of it; if the Church (whatever that may be) wants to classify or rank ecclesiastical bodies outside of itself that’s their own prerogative, but I see no reason why this needs to be reciprocated. Again, the concept of valid sacraments developed outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would no more expect the Orthodox to have an opinion of that than for a Catholic to have an opinion on whether or not one should remain standing during Mass.

Lastly, let’s not play the “my church has more dogmas than your church game.” It cuts both ways.

Good post. I’ve been a mostly-silent participant on this thread, but I really feel I should take a moment to weigh in at this point…

First let me say that I very much regret this turning into a whale-on-the-Orthodox thread. I don’t even know how that happened.

Secondly, we Catholics are sometimes a bit unfair regarding the Orthodox view of Catholic sacraments. We ought to keep in mind that the Orthodox have never officially declared that Catholic sacraments are “absolutely null and utterly void”, or anything else comparable to what Pope Leo XIII said about Anglican ordinations in Apostolicae Curae. (And even if they do so in the future, which I doubt, Catholics should humbly remind ourselves that Apostolicae Curae is still in effect, so how much basis would we have to complain?)

 

[GaryTaylor]

In all fairness I’m not really concerned or interested in what the EO has to say about Catholic Sacraments or the mysteries of the Catholic Church.

I’m interested in what the EO state “specifically” about their own teachings. And again I find no consensus. Repetitive point.

I have found the conversations “unclear” in this regard.

“This has certainly become a paradoxical attitude, especially since these Christians who cannot point their fingers at this enemy of mankind are the same people who illogically claim that in Christ there is remission of this unknown original sin” Father John Romanides

Creed comes from the Latin credo which means “I believe.” Which is the paragraph I have been speaking on…

We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Remission of sin [baptism and the particular and final judgment]

The Fathers thinking becomes a contingent on “what he thinks the Catholic Church” is teaching clearly is an incorrect assumption …

“and that thus all share in the [guilt] of Adam, is to ignore the true nature of the justice of God and deny and real power to the devil.”

Again point isn’t to critique the Father, its to point out the difference in the EO and EOC. Above is not clear and is suggestive of numerous acceptable teachings. Why would the EO desire to explain what the CC doesn’t teach rather than explain what they teach? Again also for example here, and with Particular/Final judgment?

orthodoxwitness.org/over-the-rooftops/original-sin-according-to-st-paul/

Its problematic and without going into the depth as done above.

Also I can’t find any elaboration on Ancestral Sin predating Augustine, I don’t see the connection of the two in the early Church. It doesn’t exist. Thus you have an undefined developed doctrine which imho becomes an issue since a specific belief isn’t required as I showed above and its understanding proceeds from an incorrect understanding.

Is there a doctrine of Ancestral sin? When was this term “first”: used in the East? You guys never changed anything so the theory of Ancestral sin should clearly be shown to exist in the early church. And where in the “early church” does anyone state…“people who illogically claim that in Christ there is remission of this unknown original sin” Which Saint stated or Council stated this? Sounds like a contradiction here…:but its acceptable EO teaching? Yes or No?

We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.

Ancestral sin, should exist so we can view the suggested difference in the early church, namely before Augustine. It should be no problem showing here also we have two distinct and different understandings. Its not true, there is none.

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/399/romanides-original-sin/

To talk about Sacraments, then clarity is required.

I don’t see why anyone needs an opinion of the others communion either. Nevertheless those “opinions” above are incorrect and they are abundant as shown in the above links.

 

[twf]

You have that backwards. The West was the same multiplicity of churches and evolved into one homogenous organization.

As for being national, it has always been easiest to draw ecclesiastical boundaries based on secular boundaries.

Not sure what you’re getting at with the bishops. The argument fails the same way claiming more laity does. Both the Arians and Nestorians at one time had more bishops than the pre-Great Schism church. Does that mean they were right all along?

My point had nothing to do with who is or isn’t right. You were saying you didn’t like the “two lungs” metaphor because the Latin Church, at least the way I understood your post, cannot be seen as the equal of the East…as in even in the event of full communion, the vast Latin Church would be seen as the equivalent of the Church of Crete, a single national church, rather than the equivalent of the Byzantine East. I was contesting that. For one, I disagree that the Latin West is a homogenous organization. The national episcopal conferences have considerable autonomy and you will find that much varies within the Latin Church between nations or even individual dioceses: fasting days, holy days of obligation, when to kneel during the liturgy, etc. Technically the Latin Church also includes several rites other than the Roman Rite which adds to the diversity. The Anglican Ordinariates are also part of the Latin Church and boast not only a distinct liturgical tradition but married priests and other practices not found elsewhere in the Latin Church. I don’t see how the Latin Church is anymore homogenous than the various Byzantine Churches. Perhaps less so, despite the central “authority” that is the Vatican.
In regards to national churches of the past, it is true that much of their traditional autonomy was supplanted by Rome’s central bureaucracy, but as I noted above with the national episcopal conferences, this trend has started to reverse since Vatican II. Either way, the Latin national churches were never independent patriarchates as seen in the East nor did they ever claim any sort of autocephaly.

 

[twf]

In our opinion the entire life of the Church is sacramental in nature. There is no one list of seven or eight or twenty sacraments; we don’t subscribe to the black-and-white, scholastic mindset of Latin Catholicism to define what part of Church “is” and “is not” a Sacrament. Anyone who produces such a list isn’t completely accurate.

This is also true in Catholicism. We see the entire Church as a sacrament - as the mystical extension of the Incarnation. We do define seven sacraments, which were instituted by Christ, but with the more holistic sacramental understanding of the entire Church in mind, we have always believed in an endless variety of sacramentals - other sacramental signs and rites which draw from the sacramental life of the Church: blessings, the sign of the cross, holy water, holy oils, religious profession, exorcisms, the blessings of abbots and abbesses, etc, etc.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

775 “The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament - a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men.” The Church’s first purpose is to be the sacrament of the inner union of men with God. Because men’s communion with one another is rooted in that union with God, the Church is also the sacrament of the unity of the human race. In her, this unity is already begun, since she gathers men “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues”; at the same time, the Church is the “sign and instrument” of the full realization of the unity yet to come.
776 As sacrament, the Church is Christ’s instrument. “She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all,” “the universal sacrament of salvation,” by which Christ is “at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God’s love for men.” The Church “is the visible plan of God’s love for humanity,” because God desires “that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[josie_L]

The pope does not have the power to render a synod null and void, that being said, a council cannot be considered ecumenical without his confirmation, being that he is head of the visible church and the only patriarch of the West.

I forgot to add that the Robber council of Ephesus was never viewed as ecumenical by the whole Church and neither was its acceptance widespread, the fact that it wasn’t widespread had much to do with the fact that the Pope never ratified the council and the tome of St. Leo was already accepted by much of the Church prior to Chalcedon:

Both Marcian and Pulcheria were opposed to the new teaching of Dioscurus and Eutyches; and Marcian at once informed Leo I of his willingness to call a new council according to the previous desire of the pope. In the meantime conditions had changed. Anatolius of Constantinople, and with him many other bishops, condemned the teaching of Eutyches and accepted the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo. Any new discussions concerning the Christian Faith seemed therefore superfluous.

newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

 

[joe371]

You have that backwards. The West was the same multiplicity of churches and evolved into one homogenous organization.

As for being national, it has always been easiest to draw ecclesiastical boundaries based on secular boundaries.

Not sure what you’re getting at with the bishops. The argument fails the same way claiming more laity does. Both the Arians and Nestorians at one time had more bishops than the pre-Great Schism church. Does that mean they were right all along?

Nine_Two, do you have a personal opinion regarding the notion that grace is conferred via the catholic sacraments?

 

[dzheremi]

Nine Two, what’s your opinion on whatever Joe371 had for breakfast this morning?

(I’m being intentionally silly, obviously, but that’s kind of what that question is like…)

 

[joe371]

Nine Two, what’s your opinion on whatever Joe371 had for breakfast this morning?

(I’m being intentionally silly, obviously, but that’s kind of what that question is like…)

Well, if he does not want to answer, that’s cool…:shrug:By the way I had eggs for breakfast…