Posted on 05/03/2006 2:03:34 PM PDT by pravknight
Of course.
Some saints such as St. Meletius of Antioch were schismatics, relative to the Roman papacy.
Incorrect.
For goodness sake, JP2 even recognized the Russian Orthodox Church's canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," referring to him as such in the same breath with St. Francis of Assisi.
Acknowledging that the Russians venerate him as a saint is not the same as formally declaring him a saint.
And CTTOH was not an official Papal pronouncement, either.
St. Nicholas of Myra punched Arius at the Council of Nicaea according to legend, for example.
I'm sure Arius deserved it. Saint Louis IX killed Muslims in battle, too.
So why do you deny Gregory II's credibility?
Gregory II had an excellent motive to lie, and his story is completely unsubstantiated by anyone else. Why do you assume that he is credible?
Papal power is a given that we both can agree on, but I think we disagree upon how or when that authority should be exercised. From my perspective, it should be exercised no differently than it was exercise prior to the Great Schism between East and West.
The exercise of that authority is up to its holder. And it is 2006, not 1006. The Pope will have to use his authority now as he sees fit.
What do you think of Jaroslav Pelikan's reliability as a historian?
Pelikan is a fine historian, but like any historian his work is his personal interpretation of the facts.
How do you reconcile JP2's and Vatican II's statements about other religions with the pre-Concilliar statements condemning Judaism, Islam and pagan religions?
They don't need to be reconciled. They differ in tone and emphasis, not in doctrine or substance.
Some saints such as St. Meletius of Antioch were schismatics, relative to the Roman papacy.
Incorrect.
Ever hear of the Meletian Schism? St. Meletius was NOT in communion with Pope St. Damasus I, who recognized Paulinus as the Patriarch of Antioch.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope St. Damasus:
http://tinyurl.com/jy6s4
"In the matter of the Meletian Schism at Antioch, Damasus, with Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria, sympathized with the party of Paulinus as more sincerely representative of Nicene orthodoxy; on the death of Meletius he sought to secure the succession for Paulinus and to exclude Flavian (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., V, xv). He sustained the appeal of the Christian senators to Emperor Gratian for the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate House (Ambrose, Ep. xvii, n. 10), and lived to welcome the famous edict of Theodosius I, "De fide Catholica" (27 Feb., 380), which proclaimed as the religion of the Roman State that doctrine which St. Peter had preached to the Romans and of which Damasus was supreme head (Cod. Theod., XVI, 1, 2)."
According to the EWTN Web site, St. Meletius' feast is kept on February 12 on the Roman calendar:http://tinyurl.com/hhjpc
The Eastern Catholic Churches currently liturgically commemorate numerous post-Schism Orthodox saints with Rome's blessing, such as St. Gregory Palamas.
St. Pius X when he accepted the Russian Catholics under Blessed Leonid Federov into communion with the Holy See allowed them to preserve the liturgical calendar they had prior to their union.
Acknowledging that the Russians venerate him as a saint is not the same as formally declaring him a saint.
>>This may be the case from a legal standpoint, but it is a de facto recognition of his sanctity that the Pope of Rome, as a private theologian refers to him as Saint Seraphim of Sarov, not simply Seraphim of Sarov.
As a matter of fact, the small number of Russian Byzantine Catholics liturgically commemorate St. Seraphim of Sarov together with countless other Russian saints who lived their whole lives in schism with the Roman papacy.
Your maximalist interpretation of papal power and authority is a theological opinion, not Catholic dogma.
Of course.
St. Meletius was NOT in communion with Pope St. Damasus I
He most certainly was. The Pope never excommunicated him, nor did Meletios ever break communion with the Pope on his side.
You quote this, but you did not read this carefully:
In the matter of the Meletian Schism at Antioch, Damasus, with Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria, sympathized with the party of Paulinus as more sincerely representative of Nicene orthodoxy; on the death of Meletius he sought to secure the succession for Paulinus
You ignore the historical facts: Meletius the PAtriarch was exiled from Antioch by the Emperor in favor of an Arian heretic. The Church in Antioch needed a doctrinally orthodox leader and Paulinus stepped into the breach - Paulinus was not named to the position by the Pope, who was himself dealing with the Julian persecution
When the dust cleared there were two claimants to the Patriarchy of Antioch and the Pope did not depose or excommunicate either of them.
He was handed a fait accompli by the chaos of the time.
Meletios was never formally in schism with anyone - however the confusion had the appearance of schism with certain Catholics siding with Meletios and others with Paulinus.
According to the EWTN Web site, St. Meletius' feast is kept on February 12 on the Roman calendar
Why wouldn't it be kept?
The Eastern Catholic Churches currently liturgically commemorate numerous post-Schism Orthodox saints with Rome's blessing, such as St. Gregory Palamas.
Why shouldn't they? None of these saints were guilty of the sin of schism - they were doctrinally orthodox Catholics born into a schismatic situation they did not create.
St. Pius X when he accepted the Russian Catholics under Blessed Leonid Federov into communion with the Holy See allowed them to preserve the liturgical calendar they had prior to their union.
And why shouldn't they? There have always been multiple calendars in the Church.
This may be the case from a legal standpoint, but it is a de facto recognition of his sanctity that the Pope of Rome, as a private theologian refers to him as Saint Seraphim of Sarov, not simply Seraphim of Sarov.
It's interesting that you are conflating the Pope's public office and private thoughts, since that is exactly what you have falsely accused me of doing.
As a matter of fact, the small number of Russian Byzantine Catholics liturgically commemorate St. Seraphim of Sarov together with countless other Russian saints who lived their whole lives in schism with the Roman papacy.
Again, the question of whether they lived with consequences of someone else's sin has nothing to do with evaluating their personal sanctity.
Your maximalist interpretation of papal power and authority is a theological opinion, not Catholic dogma.
Another straw man. My interpretation is simply orthodox - neither "maximalist" nor is it your minimalist description of the Pope as some kind of touchy-feely "moderator."
I will quote paragraph 882 of the Catechism again:
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
It really couldn't be more clear. Do you need a clarification of the word "full"? Or "supreme"? Or "universal"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.