Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[steve_b]

I know you would , I actually thought about what I should say there, and decided “join” is a neutral term that wouldn’t bias either Orthodox or Catholic.

“Join”, suggests to me that one never belonged in the first place. Which isn’t the case.

John:

It is just easier to use RCC and EO than it is to say Catholic and Orthodox.

Why? Just curious

John:

Yeah, but was the Pope referring to the Eastern Rite Catholics, or the Eastern Orthodox

The pope is always looking for unification. But until that happens, division hurts everyone.

John:

when he said about them suffering at first? Perhaps he was talking about those which had been Eastern Rite Catholics after the invasion of the Ottoman empire, but then later joined the EO? It seems like this may affect the context within which we are to understand what the Pope is saying.

In the beginning everyone was Catholic, West and East. There was no [O]rthodox (proper name) Church. Schism, which is a choice, is a serious sin.

Serious sin always brings with it serious spiritual consequences if not rectified, and often times temporal consequences as well…would you agree?

John:

in all fairness to the EO position, they would say that it was better that they were conquered than that they lost the “true” faith.

If they did think that, my guess is, a very small minority would think that way. But maybe some Orthodox will wade in on this.

John:

To be honest, I thought it was common knowledge. I don’t know what kind of statistics are out there, but you can check out the new advent at this site. newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm Look at the end of the first part:

In this overwhelming disaster of the Arab invasion the Churches of Africa were blotted out. Not that all was destroyed, but that remnant of Christian life was so small as to be matter for erudition rather than for history.

after the East split into 4 individual patriarchates 2 centuries before, the text you highlight was now under the patriarch of Alexandria

John:

Yes and no. I think there were gradually bad feelings building up to this point (maybe beginning with, but probably even before, the Papal Bull excomunicating the Constantinople Patriarch some centuries before, which I realize was not done with direct Papal approval). At the same time it was a devastating development.

prior cracks in unity always had to do with authority. Serious cracks started to happen after the establishment of the patriarchal system.

 

[steve_b]

Can you direct me to where the Pope apologised for the actions of the crusaders and particularly for the Catholic priests who gave the crusaders absolution before they attacked?
Can you direct me to where the Pope condemned the setting up of a Latin on the Patriarchal throne or at the very least his refusal to recognise him?
Can you direct me to where the Pope condemned and refused the steady stream of wealth and relics stripped from Constantinople into the Churches of Florence and other Churches in the West?

The Pope may not have approved of the means, but he took full advantage of the ends.

John

John,

I don’t mean this as an excuse, but regarding your last statement, all I can say is, you can’t unring a bell. The damage was done. In the case you mention, I would say, you assess the damage and do the best you can to remedy the situation.

Looking back 20/20 hindsight, should Alexius, have promised to have the Greeks return to the Roman communion, and give the crusaders 200,000 marks, if they would restore him to power in Constantinople? Absolutely NOT. Was he even able to make this promise? NO. The crusaders were supposed to go to Jerusalem, NOT get involved in intrique in Constantinople.

When neither promise happened, Constantinople got sacked and all the treasures were removed. Was that okay? Absolutely NOT!

When the pope heard about it, he excommunicated all the crusaders who participated.

As far as the apology
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=28935

 

[John214]

Hey Steve,

Good to see you again!

“Join”, suggests to me that one never belonged in the first place. Which isn’t the case.

I am sorry to have given off that impression, I can’t think of a more neutral word. Try to keep in mind that “join” and “rejoin” are not opposites. Join does not have to mean that they never belonged to begin with, but rejoin means they must have been there originally. I use the word that I hoped would caused the least confusion. I apologize for the inability to express what I meant.

Why (is it easier to call Catholic RCC and Orthodox Eastern Orthodox)? Just curious

1. RCC is three letters which I can type very quickly, Catholic Church is 14 letters, which takes a little longer, and Roman Catholic Church is 19 letters. EO is two letters, Orthodox Church is also 14 letters and Eastern Orthodox Church is 21. (Call me lazy, but these posts get long and it does make a difference when you say the two many times).
2. Catholic and Orthodox are sometimes confusing terms. The Orthodox believe themselves to be catholic, and the Catholics believe themselves to be orthodox. To be really semantically correct we have to go to some extremes in some cases just to be clear, as for example when you wrote:

[O]rthodox (proper name) Church

If I say EO then everyone on here immediately knows what I am talking about, if I say RCC then everyone on here knows I mean the Church under the Pope. I suppose a vague point would be about the Eastern Rite Catholics.

The pope is always looking for unification. But until that happens, division hurts everyone.

Sure, but in this letter I don’t know who he is referring to. If I write a letter to a certain enemy saying that I want peace with them, but fail to mention one of their allies, they should not simply assume, “Oh because John214 said he wants peace, it is clear that in this context at this time (even though he did not say it) he wants peace with everyone”

In the beginning everyone was Catholic, West and East. There was no [O]rthodox (proper name) Church. Schism, which is a choice, is a serious sin.

I understand that this is your perspective, I am sure any Orthodox would say the same thing, except switching terms around.

Serious sin always brings with it serious spiritual consequences if not rectified, and often times temporal consequences as well…would you agree?

Yes, but I think you are making this too general (as you did with the post about unity). The Pope is talking about a certain group, which has undergone a certain consequence. Of course sin always brings consequences, but the Pope is referring to some consequences of a certain group he believes to be obvious. I am not a Historical expert on the Catholic Church in the 1800s to know what his idea might have been, and I do not know enough about the history of the Fall of the Eastern Empire.

If they did think that, my guess is, a very small minority would think that way. But maybe some Orthodox will wade in on this.

I think the vast majority thought that way. That is a big reason why the Councils at Lyons and Florence did not bring reunification. The clergy and laity rejected it. Of course, how much of this was based upon reasoned arguments and how much was based on propaganda, I don’t know, but I think the West had just as much propagandizing.

after the East split into 4 individual patriarchates 2 centuries before, the text you highlight was now under the patriarch of Alexandria

Was Morocco under the Alexandrian Patriarchate also?

prior cracks in unity always had to do with authority. Serious cracks started to happen after the establishment of the patriarchal system.

1. I disagree, prior cracks in unity almost always had to do with doctrinal difficulties, heresies and what not. Perhaps some minor cracks had to do with authority.
2. I understand that you are taking a Catholic perspective on this, and I am not trying to say you are wrong, but the Orthodox would probably respond by saying that it wasn’t after the establishment of the patriarchal system, but rather it was the growing assertion of the Roman Church that they were the Supreme Head.

Thanks for posting, and glad to see you back!

John

 

[tdgesq]

tdgesq,

Glad to hear from you, thank you for the responses.

No problem, I enjoy the discussion.

You assume that the only way we can know that the Church must be a continuous apostolic body is through the office of the Pope.

That’s a little bit unfair. By now I think it should be fairly apparent that I’ve actually read the works of many of the ECF’s. Some of them in their entirety, especially the earliest ones. I see evidence - what I consider good evidence - of a model of Church authority that places the successor of St. Peter at its head. I do not see the EO model of the pentarchy, or a general understanding that once a certain number or quality of bishops meet that the matter has been put to rest. I have made the historical inquiry. I am now asking for some evidence of the EO model, particularly pre-Nicene. I don’t see it.

As for apostolic succession of individual bishops, even Catholics believe that they have the right and the duty to teach the catholic faith based upon apostolic succession, and receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit in doing so. The question always becomes what happens when there is a split in opinion amongst the apostolic successors. These usually result in the most pervasive and potent heresies of all. Who is the final arbiter? The alternative is just to wait while the faithful suffer in hopes that there will be an ill-defined consensus.

In reality it is not so. I am what one might call a transitioning Protestant (where I will go, I am not sure yet), and the thing which caused me to doubt my belief in Sola Scriptura was not that the Popes have held such a strong record of consistent teaching, but rather, the fact that the early Church was clearly Apostolic in nature, and held to many beliefs that both RCC and EO share.

I find that to be a perfectly legitimate reason to leave Protestantism. The good news is that the Holy Spirit is at work in leading each and every bishop of the Church, including the EO bishops. It is also good news that we do agree on the majority of the central truths of Christianity. The bad news is that one of the most powerful attacks the non-apostolic churches have is that the successors of the apostles can’t seem to get along. Until that happens, some body is right and some body is wrong. How do we know who it is? If that doesn’t concern you, then there isn’t much more I can add.

If I felt that Apostolic Succession was indeed the norm of the Church since its inception, and if I were (I said if) to reject the Supremacy of the Pope, I would not be lost and unable to make an intelligent decision.

You would then have to decide the successors who are right and the successors who are wrong, based upon your own independent analysis for every issue upon which they disagree. My contention is that the faithful should not be required to do that. It destroys the very concept of the Church’s authoritative function.

Blue: General consensus is not the main issue though, even Protestants (though divided in body) are very similar in their main beliefs (thus communion can be taken interchangeably in most denominations). The issue is really about consensus within the True Body of Christ.

Actually, I think the real issue is how we identify what is true teaching and what isn’t. How do we know when a teaching is true or false. That is what we have the Church for. The ones that everybody agrees upon aren’t the problem. It’s the ones where they disagree.

Red: Not necessarily, it could simply mean interpreting those quotes in a different way. For instance, most Orthodox will admit freely that the Church of Rome was a bulwark of orthodoxy and the “head” of the Church (understood in an Orthodox manner).

The reader will have to decide. With no pre-Nicene evidence from the EO of their own model.

Green: I believe both RCC and EO agree that God in the Person of the Holy Spirit has Binding Authority, it is about how we are to know that (in the person of the Pope, or in a Collegiate and holistic environment).

I’m with you on the “how do we know” portion, but not on the false dichotomy of Pope individually or collegial and holistic portion. The CC didn’t hold 14 ecumenical councils after the schism for the fun of it. The bishops voted and the Pope confirmed their decisions. Some of the time the bishops didn’t unanimously agree just as in the very early councils. But there you have it.

The idea is that in de uniate Cyprian was clearly pro-Papacy, but later he had no problem in opposing the Pope. Therefore 1) he did not mean what he said, 2) he meant what he said, but changed his position because he believed his prior position to be false, 3) he believed his prior position to be true but still decided to go against the Pope illogically.

Bishops can and have disagreed with the Pope, legitimately. They still do it all the time in council. It is only when the Pope by virtue of his Petrine office publicly and irrevocably declares doctrine that the case is closed. By the way, who prevailed on the Cyprianic issue?

There is no reason why we should immediately accept his prior position, unless we take a bias that the Pope must be the Supreme Authority.

Or maybe if we have historical support and the EO lack it. That might be something other than bias. But a prior position of a Pope can be disputed anyway, so long as he has not made a declaration that meets the infallibility criterion.

But these others are guided by the Holy Spirit in a fundamentally different way, the only way an Catholic can know if something is actually true or not, is by seeing what the Pope has said about it (thus a Council is only true if the Pope ratifies it, Tradition is only true if the Pope approves, theologians are only right if the Pope agrees).

Where did you get that idea? There are truths we all accept whether the Pope has said anything about it or not. These are not the ones about which I am concerned here. Even the ones that are disputed, we may have come to a recognition of those truths based upon our own study of the issues. Now what happens when the Bishop of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Patriarch of Alexandria disagrees with you, or they disagree amongst themselves. Now what?

Does the Pope need the Council to make a decision about an important Doctrine?

Obviously, because he continues to call them. He wouldn’t call them if he didn’t need them. You have what I call “the lightning bolt” theory of papal infallibility - that these truths strike the Pope like a lightning bolt without any need to exercise the intellect or to receive the assistance of the college of Bishops. Papal infallibility is a charism that protects the Pope from teaching error when in his capacity as the successor of St. Peter he definitively and publicly rules on a matter of faith. That’s it. In that circumstance he is protected from teaching error.

Let me be clear on this. If the Pope does in fact make such a declaration without holding a council, it is the truth. Period. Would the Pope be in a position to make that declaration without the guidance of the college in many instances. I doubt it. Perhaps eventually while the Church suffers.

Is the Pope’s infallibility contingent upon learned Scholars? Is it that the Pope is only infallible when the Church supports his view? Or as clearly is the case that you have presented, that the Church is only correct when the Pope agrees.

The Pope’s infallibility is not, his decision is. It is not a lightning bolt of divine providence. When the Church supports his view? You mean a majority of bishops? The Patriarchs? What do you mean?

Suppose there is a group of Bishops of Scholars evenly divided on an issue, will they make any difference in the Pope’s decision?

Yes.

What if there are a vast majority of Bishops who are pushing for a false position?

Then maybe he won’t be able to make a decision. Maybe he will. If he does, then it is the truth.

The rest are not guaranteed infallibility in the RCC perspective, they are liable to error. Suppose 95% of the Bishops said that Jesus was not God, and 3% said He is, and 2% say they do not know. When the Pope looks at their answers, is he going to say, “Ah, you have been led by the Holy Spirit” No, he will say, “Sorry 95% of you are wrong, this is what is right, take it or leave it”. What good is a vote that is not infallible when you have an infallible source?

That is what he would say if he said anything at all. Let’s just say 100% apostasy of all other bishops to give the most extreme example possible. In this case, he would have received no guidance. If he were even able to make a decision in such a case, it would be infallible. Is such a scenario possible - that is - a complete failure of the Holy Spirit to guide the successors of the apostles save one, I think we both doubt it.

Now let me ask you this, does this show that the college of bishops is unnecessary for the Pope to make a decision?

Here is my counter-example. 50% say Jesus is not divine. 50% say divine. In that 50% who say divine includes the Pope. Now what? And whose scenario is more likely?

 

[Ignatios]

steve:

In the beginning everyone was Catholic, West and East. There was no [O]rthodox (proper name) Church. Schism, which is a choice, is a serious sin.

In the beginning all made up the (c)atholic Church= katholicos = whole = complete = lack of nothing.

So the word “catholic” was and still is in the Historical Church of GOD (the Orthodox Church), a discription WHAT the Church is and NOT WHO the Church is (in the case of the RCC).

However, today the “name” (C)atholic belong to the Roman church, if all the Churches were united to eachothers but not to the Pope then they are not memebers of the (C)atholic Church=RCC, however they differ in Doctrine, Teaching, believe and Dogmas…etc.

So the Unity in the RCC is not in the Faith, but, it is in the Pope

the following is from a (C)atholic site:"…Our experience of the term “catholic” makes us identify it almost exclusively as the brand name or trademark of one particular Church, the Roman Catholic. However the word is not a name so much as a description and as such it has been used among Christians for centuries in speaking about the Church. It is as a description that the word is used in the creed, not only by Catholics and Orthodox but by some Protestants as well…"

Originally Posted by John

in all fairness to the EO position, they would say that it was better that they were conquered than that they lost the “true” faith.

steve:

If they did think that, my guess is, a very small minority would think that way. But maybe some Orthodox will wade in on this.

I believe that I answered this before in a previous post

But I will answer it again, the Orthodox Church had 2 choices to make:

1. Go under Rome and submit to the Pope as the head of the church instead of CHRIST, and thus you loose your faith and the kingdom that it is not of this world etc… or
2. go under the Muslims and loose the buildings, goverments, Empire and all the worldly things, then suffer the persecution, but keep the Faith the Traditions etc…

So our fathers took the right decission, and instead of seeing the Tiara of the Pope and loose the faith they went under the Muslims( persecutions and etc…) and we kept the Faith.

Faith comes first and above all, True the East was lost to the Muslims but the Church prevailed, even the gates of hell did not prevail against the Faith of the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD. THIS IS THE FAITH WE LIVE BY, AND THIS IS THE FAITH WE DIE BY.

So John was right on the mark with this.

steve:

after the East split into 4 individual patriarchates 2 centuries before, the text you highlight was now under the patriarch of Alexandria

You keep saying this,
1)The East did not split into 4 diffrent Patriarchates

1. the East and the West were gathered under 5 diffrent Patriarchates ( ROME was among them)
2. If you refering to the the Fourth E.Council, the so-called Oriental Orthodox split not only from the Eastern Churches , BUT also from the Western Churches as well, the so-called the chalcedonian Churches in which they include Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople.

steve:

prior cracks in unity always had to do with authority. Serious cracks started to happen after the establishment of the patriarchal system.

Again, the establishment of the Patriarchal system (which include Rome) was not the cause of the cracks, it was the Western Church who started it, by bringing, changing and altering the Creed, Leavened Vs. unleavened bread baptism, holding the Precious Blood from the communicants etc… and claiming supremacy over the other jurisdictions in which it is contrary to the Canons.

 

[John214]

tdgesq,

Good to hear from you, as always. I feel like we are getting closer to something now, but I still have some reservations.

That’s a little bit unfair. By now I think it should be fairly apparent that I’ve actually read the works of many of the ECF’s. Some of them in their entirety, especially the earliest ones. I see evidence - what I consider good evidence - of a model of Church authority that places the successor of St. Peter at its head. I do not see the EO model of the pentarchy, or a general understanding that once a certain number or quality of bishops meet that the matter has been put to rest. I have made the historical inquiry. I am now asking for some evidence of the EO model, particularly pre-Nicene. I don’t see it.

I did not mean to accuse you of not having studied this topic, I merely meant that the office of the Bishop of Rome is not the sole way to “legitimize” an Apostolic Church (more on this in answers to latter quotes). This being said, if you don’t mind me asking, what is the strongest piece of evidence in the Early Church (pre or post Nicea, but before the schism) for the RCC position and against the EO? (I know you have posted on this earlier, but I would like here what you feel is the strongest. Perhaps a letter or statement from an ECF).

Who is the final arbiter? The alternative is just to wait while the faithful suffer in hopes that there will be an ill-defined consensus.

This brings us to another question, “Is the situation for the RCC much clearer?” 1) How can I determine, ex pre facto, if a Pope is legitimate or not, whether he is an anti-Pope or not. Indeed some Popes have even declared prior Popes as anti-Popes. This is very important to know if he should be the final arbiter or not. Is there a clear pre-nicea/scriptural way to determine whether a Pope is legitimate or not? 2) What do we do with periods where there was more than one claim to the Pope, who gets to decide which is right and how can we know there decision was right? Do we trust a fallible council?

The bad news is that one of the most powerful attacks the non-apostolic churches have is that the successors of the apostles can’t seem to get along. Until that happens, some body is right and some body is wrong. How do we know who it is? If that doesn’t concern you, then there isn’t much more I can add.

1. I am not sure that this is such a powerful attack within non-apostolic churches, but it seems to be the main one within apostolic churches. Usually the attacks from non-apostolic churches are against the very nature of apostolic succession. Indeed, the Papacy may or may not solve this problem, but it raises a lot more (for non-apostolic churches). I hear a lot more rhetoric against the Pope than I hear against Bishop’s disagreements.
2. It is not that this doesn’t concern me, it does. And you have given a valid position, which must be dealt with by the EO side.

You would then have to decide the successors who are right and the successors who are wrong, based upon your own independent analysis for every issue upon which they disagree. My contention is that the faithful should not be required to do that. It destroys the very concept of the Church’s authoritative function.

Actually, I think the real issue is how we identify what is true teaching and what isn’t. How do we know when a teaching is true or false. That is what we have the Church for. The ones that everybody agrees upon aren’t the problem. It’s the ones where they disagree.

1. Again, I would bring up the difficulties in following the legitimacy of the Pope as a counter point.
2. As I said before, I do not think that the individual must decide the truth of each point, rather he/she could look to Church History, ECF’s, Councils, current Church opinion, Scholarly opinion. But ultimately, in either the RCC or EO, the authority is not going to be in any one person, rather it is going to be in God and the work of the Holy Spirit (granted it may be in one person).

The CC didn’t hold 14 ecumenical councils after the schism for the fun of it. The bishops voted and the Pope confirmed their decisions. Some of the time the bishops didn’t unanimously agree just as in the very early councils. But there you have it.

Bishops can and have disagreed with the Pope, legitimately. They still do it all the time in council. It is only when the Pope by virtue of his Petrine office publicly and irrevocably declares doctrine that the case is closed. By the way, who prevailed on the Cyprianic issue?

1)Still, the ecumenical councils only matter if the Pope approves of them. I will address this more later.

2)Sure, if the Bishop disagrees with something that the Pope said not ex cathedra then it is ok, but I am not concerned with disagreements of this nature.

1. The “orthodox” position prevailed. Was it because the Pope approved of it? Because it was true and would ultimately prevail in the Church? The point is that Cyprian did not have a problem opposing the Pope, if he honestly felt that any who opposed the Pope were outside of the Church, then he would have to be mentally ill.

Papal infallibility is a charism that protects the Pope from teaching error when in his capacity as the successor of St. Peter he definitively and publicly rules on a matter of faith. That’s it. In that circumstance he is protected from teaching error.

“That is it”??? The Pope can, at any time when in his capacity as the successor of St. Peter, define right teaching without error! I do not think you realize how incredibly awesome such an ability is. This is the reason why I cannot understand why ecumenical councils should ever be held in the RCC position. Even if the Pope has not even studied one word of the issue, even if he has listened to no Bishops, he can still give an infallible answer to any question of doctrine. If this has always existed, and the Early Church supported it (as you suggest), then why do we not see Bishops simply agreeing with what the Bishop of Rome says all the time? Why would anyone disagree? Do we ever see the Pope excercising his right of infallibility in the Early Church?

Let me be clear on this. If the Pope does in fact make such a declaration without holding a council, it is the truth. Period. Would the Pope be in a position to make that declaration without the guidance of the college in many instances. I doubt it. Perhaps eventually while the Church suffers.

Why? He could make such a declaration, and it would be 100% correct. Because people will disagree with him? So what, better to let people disagree with you and uphold the truth than to let people feel like they are correct when they are certainly wrong.

He wouldn’t call (Councils) if he didn’t need them.

The Pope’s infallibility is not (contingent upon Councils), his decision is.

This is confusing. His infallibility is not contingent upon the Councils, but his decision is. Is that how you mean he needs them? In what way is his decision contingent upon the councils? Can he not speak ex cathedra without the council? Can he infallibly know the truth, yet be unable to express it? Either his infallliblity (100% of decisions included) are dependent upon the councils, or else they are not. I am not asking for a lightning bolt, I am only expecting what the Catholic Church has defined infallibility as.

When the Church supports his view? You mean a majority of bishops? The Patriarchs? What do you mean?

In this instance I was referring to Bishops, but it could be all clergy, all clergy and laity, that is not the point.

You answered my question about whether Bishops or scholars could affect the Pope’s decision by saying:

Yes.

How? Do you mean that they can cause the Pope to change his mind about a matter of the faith?

Then maybe he won’t be able to make a decision. Maybe he will. If he does, then it is the truth

Why wouldn’t he be able to make a decision? Will he know the answer but be unable to say it?

Now let me ask you this, does this show that the college of bishops is unnecessary for the Pope to make a decision?

Here is my counter-example. 50% say Jesus is not divine. 50% say divine. In that 50% who say divine includes the Pope. Now what? And whose scenario is more likely?

…if the Pope is able to make an infallible decision regardless of any council, then yes a council would be unnecessary if our goal is to know the truth of a matter (you have not illustrated how it could be necessary).

Regarding your counter example. Let us stack the odds, let us say that 51% vote one way, and 49% (including the Pope) vote another way, was their votes worth anything and did they change anything? Explain how (if you don’t mind).

God Bless,

John

 

[prodromos]

I don’t mean this as an excuse, but regarding your last statement, all I can say is, you can’t unring a bell. The damage was done. In the case you mention, I would say, you assess the damage and do the best you can to remedy the situation.

The Orthodox Church teaches repentance. Imagine the impact it would have had if the Pope had followed the example of King David and encouraged his bishops and priests to do the same, tearing their robes and putting on sackcloth and ashes in response to the atrocities committed. Perhaps the crusaders would have been shamed into repentance and ceased their looting. On seeing the remorse of the Latin clergy, perhaps the Eastern Christians would have had a different attitude towards Rome and her bishop. Your response above demonstrates an attitude quite alien to this possibility however, and it is more or less what I expected to hear from you.

When the pope heard about it, he excommunicated all the crusaders who participated.

Do you have a citation? I know the crusaders were excommunicated after attacking Zara but I am unaware of the Pope’s response to the sack of Constantinople.

As far as the apology
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=28935

Your link does not have the Pope’s apology. Do you have one where we can see what the Pope actually said?

John

 

[Mickey]

“That is it”??? The Pope can, at any time when in his capacity as the successor of St. Peter, define right teaching without error! I do not think you realize how incredibly awesome such an ability is. This is the reason why I cannot understand why ecumenical councils should ever be held in the RCC position. Even if the Pope has not even studied one word of the issue, even if he has listened to no Bishops, he can still give an infallible answer to any question of doctrine. If this has always existed, and the Early Church supported it (as you suggest), then why do we not see Bishops simply agreeing with what the Bishop of Rome says all the time? Why would anyone disagree? Do we ever see the Pope excercising his right of infallibility in the Early Church?

Amen, John. That is it in a nut shell. The odd doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy has rendered the “Ecumenical Council” useless for the RCC.

Furthermore, the doctrine of papal infallibility may go further than we realize. I would like to introduce this phrase for discussion:

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

LUMEN GENTIUM
Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

 

[steve_b]

The Orthodox Church teaches repentance. Imagine the impact it would have had if the Pope had followed the example of King David and encouraged his bishops and priests to do the same, tearing their robes and putting on sackcloth and ashes in response to the atrocities committed. Perhaps the crusaders would have been shamed into repentance and ceased their looting. On seeing the remorse of the Latin clergy, perhaps the Eastern Christians would have had a different attitude towards Rome and her bishop. Your response above demonstrates an attitude quite alien to this possibility however, and it is more or less what I expected to hear from you.

Did Barthelmew I, accept the pope’s apology or did he refuse?

It seems you put alot of strings on an apology, and even more on accepting an apology.

How does that fit with this perspective?
orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/MorelliForgiveness.php
Prod:

Do you have a citation? I know the crusaders were excommunicated after attacking Zara but I am unaware of the Pope’s response to the sack of Constantinople.
Your link does not have the Pope’s apology. Do you have one where we can see what the Pope actually said?

John

Again,

Did your ecumenical patriarch accept the apology or not?

 

[tdgesq]

Mickey,

Not the first translation you provided, is it? Let’s first take a look at some of the language you conveniently omitted with ellipses.

Your Blessedness has also been careful to declare that you do not now make use of proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity in writing to certain persons,and you address me saying, As you have commanded. This word, command, I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable. Yet I do not find that your Blessedness has been willing to remember perfectly this very thing … lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope… do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself… I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.
¶ And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title … .

What are the “proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity in writing to certain persons” of which Gregory speaks? And why did you omit it? It appears various Patriarchs were attempting to apply the term “universal bishop” to themselves, and therefore, Gregory refuses the same, using the fact that even Pope Leo refused that title:

[P]resume not ever to issue or to receive writings with the falsity of the name Universal in them. Bid all the bishops subject to your care abstain from the defilement of this elation, that the Universal Church may acknowledge you as Patriarchs not only in good works but also in the authority of truth. newadvent.org/fathers/360205043.htm

Here’s what Pope Gregory’s predecessor did when the Bishop of Constantinople tried to use it:

Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.newadvent.org/fathers/360205043.htm

I thought all bishops were equal in authority? Yet here a Pope annuls both the decision of Bishop John and his synod.

I greatly enjoy the second omission that you made, where Gregory states: “I know who I am, and who you are.” What does Gregory tell Bishop Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (the very same person he writes to in the quote you presented), he is:

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

Yes, Pope Gregory knew what he was. And was it just some titular honorary designation?

Of the privileges of Monasteries.

We therefore interdict in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and forbid by the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, in whose stead we preside over this Roman Church, that any bishop or secular person hereafter presume in any way to devise occasions of interfering with regard to the revenues, property, or writings of monasteries, or of the cells or vills thereto appertaining, or have recourse to any tricks or exactions: but, if any case should by chance arise as to land disputed between their churches and any monasteries, and it cannot be arranged amicably, let it be terminated without intentional delay before selected abbots and other fathers who fear God, sworn upon the most holy Gospels.newadvent.org/fathers/360202041.htm

To All the Bishops of Dalmatia.

Gregory to all the bishops through Dalmatia .

It behoved your Fraternity, having the eyes of the flesh closed out of regard to Divine judgment, to have omitted nothing that appertains to God and to a right inclination of mind, nor to have preferred the countenance of any man whatever to the uprightness of justice. But now that your manners have been so perverted by secular concerns, that, forgetting the whole path of the sacerdotal dignity that is yours, and all sense of heavenly fear, you study to accomplish what may please yourselves and not God, we have held it necessary to send you these specially strict written orders, whereby, with the authority of the blessed Peter, Prince of the apostles, we enjoin that you presume not to lay hands on any one whatever in the city of Salona, so far as regards ordination to episcopacy, without our consent and permission; nor to ordain any one in the same city otherwise than as we have said.

But if, either of your own accord, or under compulsion from any one whatever, you should presume or attempt to do anything contrary to this injunction, we shall decree you to be deprived of participation of theLord’s body and blood, that so your very handling of the business, or your very inclination to transgress our order, may cut you off from the sacred mysteries, and no one may be accounted a bishop whom you may ordain.newadvent.org/fathers/360204010.htm

I agree that Pope Gregory did not command Bishop Eulogius to do anything in your chopped up citation. I agree he did not find that the term the Universal Bishop to be used for any Bishop, whether Pope or not. I agree that he believed it would it would inflate vanity and wound charity.

Now, how does that in anywise affect the authority he in fact exercised in his office as successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter the Rock? It doesn’t - obviously. How did it affect Pope Leo’s refusal to confirm Canon 28 of Chalcedon as acknowledged by the Patriarch of Constantinople? It didn’t. An extremely poor move on your part to cite to this particular Pope to make your case.

 

[clmowry]

Well at least there is nothing to discredit this response.

Of course it has not merit either.

But it’s tuff to disprove.

Chuck

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve,

Good to see you again!

I am sorry to have given off that impression, I can’t think of a more neutral word. Try to keep in mind that “join” and “rejoin” are not opposites. Join does not have to mean that they never belonged to begin with, but rejoin means they must have been there originally. I use the word that I hoped would caused the least confusion. I apologize for the inability to express what I meant.

:tiphat: no problem.

I was also trying to cause the least confusion. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I don’t. But that’s why I used the term returned
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3718964&postcount=511

John:

1. RCC is three letters which I can type very quickly, Catholic Church is 14 letters, which takes a little longer, and Roman Catholic Church is 19 letters.

How bout CC, it’s only 2 letters.

John:

1. Catholic and Orthodox are sometimes confusing terms.

These are proper names of different Churches. They aren’t confusing.

John:

The Orthodox believe themselves to be catholic, and the Catholics believe themselves to be orthodox.

Yet the Catholic Church doesn’t call itself the Orthodox Church nor does the Orthodox Church call itself the Catholic Church.
That really WOULD be confusing.

John:

Sure, but in this letter I don’t know who he is referring to. If I write a letter to a certain enemy saying that I want peace with them, but fail to mention one of their allies, they should not simply assume, “Oh because John214 said he wants peace, it is clear that in this context at this time (even though he did not say it) he wants peace with everyone”

In the passages leading up to paragraph 17 I think he’s clear. But one needs to know the history

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm

John:

Yes, but I think you are making this too general (as you did with the post about unity). The Pope is talking about a certain group, which has undergone a certain consequence. Of course sin always brings consequences, but the Pope is referring to some consequences of a certain group he believes to be obvious. I am not a Historical expert on the Catholic Church in the 1800s to know what his idea might have been, and I do not know enough about the history of the Fall of the Eastern Empire.

The part of history we’re talking about, spans In sequence,

• Roman empire, ends ~470
• Byzantine empire,~500 - ~1300
• Ottoman empire. ~1300 - ~1920
  Do these dates help?

John:

I think the vast majority thought that way. That is a big reason why the Councils at Lyons and Florence did not bring reunification. The clergy and laity rejected it. Of course, how much of this was based upon reasoned arguments and how much was based on propaganda, I don’t know, but I think the West had just as much propagandizing.

When you read the docs from the council, they even said, (paraphrased) every effort was made by the participants to try and understand each other’s side by really trying to understand the differences in language. Every effort to avoid misunderstandings therefore, were taken into consideration.

all that fell apart once the Easterners returned home.

John:

Was Morocco under the Alexandrian Patriarchate also?

I’m not sure. As i understand it, The Byzantines were in charge of N Africa from ~500. But I could be wrong.

John:

1. I disagree, prior cracks in unity almost always had to do with doctrinal difficulties, heresies and what not. Perhaps some minor cracks had to do with authority.

Doctrinal difficulties and heresies are remedied by authority.

John:

1. I understand that you are taking a Catholic perspective on this, and I am not trying to say you are wrong, but the Orthodox would probably respond by saying that it wasn’t after the establishment of the patriarchal system, but rather it was the growing assertion of the Roman Church that they were the Supreme Head.

The Church of Rome has always been considered the chair of Peter. OTOH, the patriarchal system introduced by the East in the 4th century was meant to divide authority away from the pope. During this time the notion of first among equals was advanced by the East referring to the pope.

Do the patriarchates in the East have any real authority today or are they figureheads?

 

[tdgesq]

I did not mean to accuse you of not having studied this topic, I merely meant that the office of the Bishop of Rome is not the sole way to “legitimize” an Apostolic Church (more on this in answers to latter quotes). This being said, if you don’t mind me asking, what is the strongest piece of evidence in the Early Church (pre or post Nicea, but before the schism) for the RCC position and against the EO? (I know you have posted on this earlier, but I would like here what you feel is the strongest. Perhaps a letter or statement from an ECF).

No offense taken. You ask a tough question. I don’t think I can point to just one. If I had to choose though, I’d say Matthew 16. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, or the Rock upon which it is built. I see pre-Nicene Popes exercising authority on behalf of the Church. I see post-Nicene Popes (pre-schism) acting contrary to the EO pentarcy model, with Eastern Patriarchs acknowledging the authority of the Pope to do so. If only one ECF, probably Tertullian since he is the earliest to give an historical account of a Pope exercising unilateral authority.

This brings us to another question, “Is the situation for the RCC much clearer?” 1) How can I determine, ex pre facto, if a Pope is legitimate or not, whether he is an anti-Pope or not. Indeed some Popes have even declared prior Popes as anti-Popes. This is very important to know if he should be the final arbiter or not. Is there a clear pre-nicea/scriptural way to determine whether a Pope is legitimate or not?

Not even the EO deny the apostolic lineage of the Pope, questions of the Cyprianic theory of apostolic succession aside. There have been times when anti-popes have asserted authority, but historically I don’t know of any case where it wasn’t apparent who was the Pope and was or were the anti-popes. Anybody can step forward and raise their hand claiming to be the Pope. The sedevacantists have one of their own I believe. You can believe them if you check your sanity at the door. You could say that the EO have the same issue with anti-Patriarchs, but nobody today seriously doubts their apostolic lineage.

1. What do we do with periods where there was more than one claim to the Pope, who gets to decide which is right and how can we know there decision was right? Do we trust a fallible council?

I don’t think this is an EO vs. Catholic issue. Whenever there is an anti-pope or anti-patriarch, it can cause confusion. Historically though at the end of the day, neither side doubts the other’s apostolic legitimacy. It is true though that when a Pope dies he is appointed by the cardinals and the apostolic college. I think you would find that the process was approved by the former Roman Pontiffs, but I will confess that I haven’t made an independent investigation.

1. As I said before, I do not think that the individual must decide the truth of each point, rather he/she could look to Church History, ECF’s, Councils, current Church opinion, Scholarly opinion. But ultimately, in either the RCC or EO, the authority is not going to be in any one person, rather it is going to be in God and the work of the Holy Spirit (granted it may be in one person).

I think I agree with you here.

1)Still, the ecumenical councils only matter if the Pope approves of them. I will address this more later.

They matter to the Pope, because they give him a basis, even if not always in unanimous numbers, to inform his decision.

1. The “orthodox” position prevailed. Was it because the Pope approved of it? Because it was true and would ultimately prevail in the Church? The point is that Cyprian did not have a problem opposing the Pope, if he honestly felt that any who opposed the Pope were outside of the Church, then he would have to be mentally ill.

Yes, Pope Stephen’s view prevailed. I think it would be difficult to characterize his response to Cyprian as an ex cathedra pronouncement. I still think Cyprian owed him obedience on that point though, especially since Stephen was right. It may explain Cyprian softening his second recension, but I don’t know the time periods involved. I would have to look. It still looks to me like he didn’t change his mind as to the Pope’s position in the second version. In any case, bishops have opposed the Pope before when he has defined doctrine. It is not a matter of mental illness as much as disobedience.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

“That is it”??? The Pope can, at any time when in his capacity as the successor of St. Peter, define right teaching without error! I do not think you realize how incredibly awesome such an ability is.

As long as you understand its limits. No less or more awesome than have a bunch of bishops doing the same. And what do they do? They don’t gather in assembly and throw darts to determine what is going to be doctrine and what isn’t. They meet and confer for decades on end sometimes, debating each fine theological point and then attempting to come to the truth. Our God is one of reason as well as faith.

Similarly, neither can you expect the Pope to take out the Twister wheel and give it a spin. He needs their advice and counsel to come to a decision. If he didn’t have it, I daresay that he would be quite limited in his exercise of papal authority. Look at how many canons are contained in Trent, or in Vatican I, or in Florence. Could the Pope do that by himself? He needs their assistance and advice.

This is the reason why I cannot understand why ecumenical councils should ever be held in the RCC position. Even if the Pope has not even studied one word of the issue, even if he has listened to no Bishops, he can still give an infallible answer to any question of doctrine.

I do not believe Divine Providence will allow a Pope to take out the Twister wheel, just like I don’t believe it would allow the college of Bishops to throw darts or to all come to a heretical conclusion at council as you gave in a previous example. It would be nearly unthinkable for a Pope to make an infallible declaration with no support from his bishops or scripture or the ECFs. I know of no such instance.

If this has always existed, and the Early Church supported it (as you suggest), then why do we not see Bishops simply agreeing with what the Bishop of Rome says all the time?

They almost always did, until there was schism. But this is a two way street. Nobody claims, the least of all the Pope, that his decision is not informed by his Bishops. All of the councils to which the EO hold (except for a few notable renegades) accept only the councils the the Pope approved. The first seven Ecumenical Councils.

Why would anyone disagree? Do we ever see the Pope excercising his right of infallibility in the Early Church?

They disagree all the time before he’s confirmed the acts of the council. Yes we see him exercise that authority early on. In Tertullian’s writings, in Ireanaus’ as well, in the Council of Chalcedon. Look at the excerpts from Pope Gregory I gave.

Why? He could make such a declaration, and it would be 100% correct. Because people will disagree with him? So what, better to let people disagree with you and uphold the truth than to let people feel like they are correct when they are certainly wrong.

Coming to the truth requires more than spinning the wheel, especially for the Pope.

This is confusing. His infallibility is not contingent upon the Councils, but his decision is. Is that how you mean he needs them? In what way is his decision contingent upon the councils?

I addressed this above, but here is some more. The answer is yes. There is no way he can be expected to examine every doctrinal issue without the aid of his bishops that meet for years at a time and present him with the merits of their positions. He makes his decision on the basis of reason, not on the dart board.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

Can he not speak ex cathedra without the council?

Yes. In those instances he did not need the guidance of a council to come to a decision, although in all recent pronouncements at least he has consulted the body of Bishops.

Can he infallibly know the truth, yet be unable to express it?

Only if he’s physically unable too. I’m not sure I understand the question.

Either his infallliblity (100% of decisions included) are dependent upon the councils, or else they are not.

Correct. He is not required in 100% of all instances to depend upon a council. The other 99% of the time he needs their guidance in coming to a decision. That is why he calls them even to this day.

How? Do you mean that they can cause the Pope to change his mind about a matter of the faith?

Yes, at least one that hasn’t been infallibly declared. Preservation from error is guaranteed in that instance.

Why wouldn’t he be able to make a decision? Will he know the answer but be unable to say it?

He would not be well enough informed to make a rational decision.

…if the Pope is able to make an infallible decision regardless of any council, then yes a council would be unnecessary if our goal is to know the truth of a matter (you have not illustrated how it could be necessary).

Because the Pope needs their assistance to make an informed decision That is why he called it.

Regarding your counter example. Let us stack the odds, let us say that 51% vote one way, and 49% (including the Pope) vote another way, was their votes worth anything and did they change anything? Explain how (if you don’t mind).

Assuming this did happen, he heard the debate from both sides, and was able to make a decision from what he heard. Even under all the EO models we’ve heard about, numbers don’t matter. Nevertheless the Pope wants to know where they all stand and their reasons.

If you do not see the logic in this approach, then I don’t believe I can do anymore. The entire college of RCC bishops and the bishops of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches obviously do not see their role as useless. They do not believe they are engaging in an exercise in futility when in love they come to inform the Roman Pontiff of the merits of their position on important matters of doctrine, which they ask the Pope to confirm. They are all seeking the truth together.

 

[John214]

Hey Steve,

How bout CC, it’s only 2 letters.

Haha, that would be fine as well. I suppose you are saying this as you want to distinguish between a strictly Roman Catholic Church (as in the Catholic Church at Rome) to a “Universal” Catholic Church. The only problem is that the Orthodox would also deserve to not have their sphere limited to the East and thus EO might have to change to O, which I am not sure is an actual acronym for the Orthodox Church or not.

In the passages leading up to paragraph 17 I think he’s clear. But one needs to know the history

Yes. And I do know some of the history, but I do not know the historical context within which the Pope was speaking, and I do not know exactly who he is referring to when he mentions Eastern Catholics (is this the Eastern Orthodox, or the Eastern Catholics in the East, or perhaps even those Eastern Catholics who are now attempting to break away again from Rome, is this what he means by “neo-schismatic”?)

The part of history we’re talking about, spans In sequence,
Roman empire, ends ~470
Byzantine empire,~500 - ~1300
Ottoman empire. ~1300 - ~1920
Do these dates help?

Haha, they help but that is a loooong time span. Anyways, my main difficulty was in understanding who the Pope was referring to by “Eastern Catholics” and how this quote might show how the Pope could have maintained unity.

When you read the docs from the council, they even said, (paraphrased) every effort was made by the participants to try and understand each other’s side by really trying to understand the differences in language. Every effort to avoid misunderstandings therefore, were taken into consideration.

all that fell apart once the Easterners returned home.

May I ask you, why do you believe it fell apart, from a Catholic perspective (If we assume that every effort was made at correct understanding and all of the bishops reached a genuine consensus, why did almost all of them revoke their signatures as soon as they returned?)

I’m not sure. As i understand it, The Byzantines were in charge of N Africa from ~500. But I could be wrong.

Eh, let’s just drop the N. African point until further information is available.

Doctrinal difficulties and heresies are remedied by authority

But in the case of the Arian Schismatics, they did not leave because they disagreed with the system of authority within the Church, they did so because they disagreed with the doctrinal differences.

Do the patriarchates in the East have any real authority today or are they figureheads?

I believe that within the Orthodox mind they do. Of course none has an authority that looks like the Pope’s, but within their own Sees they have the highest authority. Any authority above that is only derived from the Holy Spirit. Of course the CC also believes that the Pope has no authority on his own, but only has authority because Christ has esablished that in this office. Granted, it manifests itself in a different way.

I do believe though, that this question is better answered by an Orthodox.

God Bless,

John

 

[John214]

Hey Mickey,

Sorry it took so long to address this.

Well, we know that there were not literal keys–this is most likely a reference to Rome’s orthodoxy and bishopric. I am guessing that the reference to St Peter’s chains may signify humility and suffering for the sake of Christ.

It is difficult to interpret because it seems that most of the quotes on that site are cherry picked out of context in an attempt to show that successors of St Peter are supreme infallible pontiffs.

Is this certain? It seemed as if the Pope was giving him some artifact to wear around his neck. Also, how can the Pope “give” Roman orthodoxy and bishopric or humility to another person, and how does that ward off evil.

Perhaps it would have made more sense if the Pope had said, "I give you my blessing (which is Roman orthodoxy and bishopric), and I telll you to be humble and sacrifice as Christ did, and that if you do this (not “wear it around your neck”) then God will bless you and keep you from some evils (but certainly not all, because millions have been humble and sacrificed and still had many bad things happen to them).

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve,

Haha, that would be fine as well. I suppose you are saying this as you want to distinguish between a strictly Roman Catholic Church (as in the Catholic Church at Rome) to a “Universal” Catholic Church. The only problem is that the Orthodox would also deserve to not have their sphere limited to the East and thus EO might have to change to O, which I am not sure is an actual acronym for the Orthodox Church or not.

How bout CC & OC

John:

Yes. And I do know some of the history, but I do not know the historical context within which the Pope was speaking, and I do not know exactly who he is referring to when he mentions Eastern Catholics (is this the Eastern Orthodox, or the Eastern Catholics in the East, or perhaps even those Eastern Catholics who are now attempting to break away again from Rome, is this what he means by “neo-schismatic”?)

This is why it’s important to keep Catholic and Orthodox terminology specific. When terms get blurred in people’s minds, then the message gets blurred…agreed?

John:

May I ask you, why do you believe it fell apart, from a Catholic perspective (If we assume that every effort was made at correct understanding and all of the bishops reached a genuine consensus, why did almost all of them revoke their signatures as soon as they returned?)

There was agreement at Florence, the decree of union (Laetentur Coeli), the original which is still preserved at Florence was signed.

the Greeks when they went home only got disapproval for signing the agreement. Reunion however occured with the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites(1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans and the Maronites of Cyprus(1445)

The emperor tried to get the Greeks to agree to what they signed, but the Ottomans swooped in and conqured Constantinople and that ended it. The Ottomans were highly anti Western. And the captives take on the sentiments of the captors.

 

[prodromos]

Did Barthelmew I, accept the pope’s apology or did he refuse?

It seems you put alot of strings on an apology, and even more on accepting an apology.

I’ve asked if you can present the words of the ‘apology’ because to the best of my knowledge the Pope did not really apologise for anything. I suspect you know this also.

Again,

Did your ecumenical patriarch accept the apology or not?

You seem reluctant to post the actual ‘apology’. Since we don’t really know if it was an apology or not I am unable to answer your leading question. Its like me asking you if you still beat your wife. It assumes as ‘fact’ something which has not actually been demonstrated.

John

 

[Mickey]

Is this certain?

I do not know. Have you ever heard the expression, “He wears it like a badge of honour”?

I know of no such artifacts. But then—who am I?