Posted on 03/20/2015 6:36:17 PM PDT by Steelfish
You write about your “...innumerable corrections” to my posts.
Presumably these “corrections” are taken from schismatic Orthodox websites attempting to show that their schism is legitimate and they represented the true Church that Christ founded.
Nothing could be farther than the truth.
By A. D. 100,...Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only “true faith.” The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, “there is no salvation.” Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, “straight-thinking”) Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be Catholic— that is, universal.(See The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Published by Vintage Books. 1994)
In the year 110 A. D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
The Bible needs a visible, external authority guided by the Holy Spirit to define both the OT and NT Canons. This authority is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine writes, “I would not have believed the Gospel had not the authority of the Church moved me.”
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
Don’t take my word. Here’s one original source. St. Irenaeus:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054.
The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
Since you wish to discuss the history of the early church I refer you to EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES by Met. John Zizioulas, one of the foremost theologians in the world. He is also coincidentally a close personal friend of Pope (E) Benedict XVI.
http://www.oodegr.co/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm
Cherry picked quotes from Church Fathers do not impress. We can all play that game, even your Protestant friends.
The reference to the “Catholic Church” is of course a reference to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. i.e. the Orthodox Church.
“Presumably these “corrections” are taken from schismatic Orthodox websites attempting to show that their schism is legitimate and they represented the true Church that Christ founded.
Nothing could be farther than the truth.”
Please be specific. Setting aside theological differences, which historical facts have I presented that are false? I have been very specific in pointing out your errors.
“One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. i.e. the Orthodox Church.”
This is contradicted by history, y scripture, and the Early Church fathers. The Catholic Church alone has an unbroken line of Apostolic succession. Apparently you glaze over these facts and the statements of the early Church fathers that you call “cherry picking.”
Can you cite to any one of the early Church fathers who spoke to an “orthodox” Church that was untethered to Papal succession? The Synod of Rome in AD 382 that confirmed the selection of books in the Bible as the true word of God was under the auspices of infallible papal authority. If history tells us that the schism occurred around AD 1054, about seven centuries after the Synod of Rome, can you please explain how this infallible authority for some thousand years suddenly went out of the window because of a schismatic off-shoot that denies the Petrine doctrine?
Ah yet again you ignore my questions over and over again. They must be terribly inconvenient.
“This is contradicted by history, y scripture, and the Early Church fathers. The Catholic Church alone has an unbroken line of Apostolic succession.”
That statement is just bone crushing in its ignorance. The Roman Church has always recognized the unbroken Apostolic Succession in the Churches of the East. Seriously, your commentary is reaching the point where it is, or should be, profoundly embarrassing to your co-religionists.
“Apparently you glaze over these facts and the statements of the early Church fathers that you call “cherry picking.””
Hardly, I just linked an entire book in reply to your silly quotes. I don’t know how one can get more responsive than that.
“Can you cite to any one of the early Church fathers who spoke to an “orthodox” Church that was untethered to Papal succession? “
Read the book. You seem to think that the word “Catholic” is copyrighted by Rome. The manner in which you are employing it is entirely modern. Most people today use the term Catholic (with the large ‘C’) as a reference to the Roman Church purely as a matter of form and for convenience. This is also not universal in other languages. It is in no way a concession that the papal communion is the Church referenced in the Nicene Creed. That you do not understand this does not bode well.
“The Synod of Rome in AD 382 that confirmed the selection of books in the Bible as the true word of God was under the auspices of infallible papal authority. If history tells us that the schism occurred around AD 1054, about seven centuries after the Synod of Rome, can you please explain how this infallible authority for some thousand years suddenly went out of the window because of a schismatic off-shoot that denies the Petrine doctrine?”
Dear God, do you not read English? You keep raising this Synod, which was not an Ecumenical Council, it did not establish the Canon of Scripture for the Universal Church. THE EASTERN CHURCHES NEVER ACCEPTED THE ROMAN CANON OF SCRIPTURE. I have posted this several times already yet you keep affirming a falsehood in the hopes perhaps that if you repeat it often enough it will magically become true.
Now, after a half dozen, at least, posts back and forth, in which I have replied to each and everyone of your points, and you have ignored each and every one of mine, and have refused to respond to any of my questions, I believe it only fair that you should address some of my queries.
Here is another one for you.
Between AD 879-880 the Church held the Eighth Ecumenical Council. This Council was accepted by the entire Church with each local church granting recognition in turn. The legates of Pope John VIII were present and the Pope granted recognition of the Council on behalf of the Western Church. Among the results of the Council were the restoration of St. Photius the Great to his see, an agreement that the patriarchs would not meddle in each others churches and the explicit reaffirmation of the anathemas of the 3rd, 5th, and 6th Ecumenical Councils against all who dared to alter the Symbol of the Faith (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), thus condemning the Filioque. The Creed was recited by the Fathers and recorded in the acts of the Council in its original form. This remained the position of the entire Church for about two hundred years. Then in the 11th century, the Pope of Rome recanted and disavowed the 8th Holy and Ecumenical Council and unilaterally declared the robber council of 869-70 to be the Eighth Council without any input or consent from the rest of the Church. So much for Petrine infallibility.
Explain please.
P.S. to my last. Some of the language in my preceding reply to you was intemperate and uncharitable. I apologize. It is getting late here. I will look for your reply to my questions sometime tomorrow.
You keep mentioning your seven Councils but you have and indeed cannot dispute that it was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. These were ALL Councils of the ONE Church. Not an Orthodox offshoot that occurred with the excommunication Cerularius.
You asked me “to please explain.” But I doubt you’d accept the explanation. But anyway since you requested, here’s one:
http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.php
“You keep mentioning your seven Councils...”
Actually, you are the one who keeps mentioning the Seven Councils. As I have already pointed out, we have had nine.
“...but you have and indeed cannot dispute that it was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. These were ALL Councils of the ONE Church. Not an Orthodox offshoot that occurred with the excommunication Cerularius.”
No they were not Councils of the Universal Church. They were local church synods. That doesn’t mean they were unimportant. But they were not Ecumenical Councils.
I just glanced at the link you provided. Unfortunately it doesn’t respond to any of my specific questions. It presents the usual canned arguments and quotes that I am familiar with. Most distressing was not one word on the 8th Council. I look forward to a more substantive response that addresses those issues in detail. I don’t understand how a Pope can confirm an Ecumenical Council, which according to your church is itself an ex-cathedra pronouncement, and then two hundred years later say “oops, we goofed. We really meant this other council that none of the other local churches recognize.”
Here’s a point-by-point rebuttal. Sorry if I kept the best for the last. But it comes not from me but someone who has studied Eastern Orthodoxy and is an emeritus professor of theology, Fr. Brian Harrison. He breaks it up in four crucial propositions followed by a detailed rebuttal where he deconstructs each of them and even points to their logical incoherence.
Proposition 1: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of ecumenical councils.
However, does this mean that the Orthodox recognize the authority of all the same ecumenical councils that we Catholics recognize? Unfortunately not. While our separated Eastern brethren claim that, in principle, any ecumenical council between Pentecost and Judgment Day would enjoy the charism of being able to issue infallible dogmatic decrees, they recognize as ecumenical only the first seven councils: those that took place in the first Christian millennium, before the rupture between East and West. Indeed, even though they claim theirs is the true church, since that medieval split they have never attempted to convoke and celebrate any ecumenical council of their own. For they still recognize as a valid part of ancient tradition the role of the See of Peter as enjoying a certain primacy—at least of honor or precedence—over the other ancient centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria).
Thus, mainstream Orthodox theologians, as I understand them, would say that for a thousand years we have had a situation of interrupted infallibility. The interruption, they would maintain, has been caused above all by the “ambition,” “intransigence” or “ hubris” of the bishops of the See of Peter, who are said to have overstepped the due limits of the modest primacy bestowed on them by Jesus. However (it is said), once the Roman pontiffs come to recognize this grave error and renounce their claims to personal infallibility and universal jurisdiction over all Christians, why, then the deplorable schism will at last be healed! The whole Church, with due representation for both East and West, will once again be able to hold infallible ecumenical councils.
An Insufficient Proposal
This position, however, turns out to involve serious problems. Our separated Eastern brethren acknowledge that any truly ecumenical council will need to include not only their own representatives, but also those of the bishop of Rome, whose confirmation of its decrees would in due course be needed, as it was in those first seven councils of antiquity. Well, so far so good. But does this mean the Orthodox acknowledge that the pope’s confirmation of a council in which they participate will not only be necessary, but also sufficient, as a condition for them to recognize it as ecumenical? Unfortunately, the answer here is again in the negative. And it is the Easterners’ own history which has, as we shall now see, reshaped their theology on this point during the last half-millennium.
After the East-West rupture that hardened as a result of the mutual excommunications of 1054 and the brutal sack of Constantinople by Latin crusaders in 1204, two ecumenical councils were convoked by Rome for the purpose of healing the breach. They were held at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439, with Eastern Christendom being duly represented at both councils by bishops and theologians sent from Constantinople. And in both cases these representatives ended up fully accepting, on behalf of the Eastern Church, the decrees, promulgated by these councils, that professed the true, divinely ordained jurisdiction of the successors of Peter over the universal Church of Christ—something much more than a mere primacy of honor. And these decrees were of course confirmed by the then-reigning popes.
Why, then, did neither of these two councils effectively put an end to the tragic and long-standing schism? Basically because the Eastern delegations to Lyons and Florence, upon returning to their own constituency, were unable to make the newly decreed union take practical effect. At Constantinople, the nerve-center of the Byzantine Empire, an attitude of deep suspicion and even passionate hostility toward the Latin “enemies” was still strongly ingrained in the hearts and minds of many citizens—great and small alike. The result was that politics and public opinion trumped the conciliar agreements. The Eastern Christians as a whole simply refused to acquiesce in the idea of allowing that man—the widely feared and detested bishop of Rome—to hold any kind of real jurisdiction over their spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs.
As a result, in order to justify their continued separation from Rome, the Orthodox have had to nuance their position on the infallibility of ecumenical councils. They have had to maintain that the participation in a given council of bishops representing the whole Church and the confirmation of their decrees by the pope, while undoubtedly necessary, is still not sufficient to guarantee the true ecumenical status of that council. For over and above the fulfillment of those conditions, it is also necessary (so they have told us in recent centuries) for the faithful as a whole in both East and West—not just the pope and bishops or even the entire clergy—to accept that council’s decrees as expressing the true faith. So the simple Proposition 1 set out above is now modified as follows:
Proposition 2: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole Church.
In the post-Enlightenment Western world, wherein opposition to clericalism (real or imagined), and the ideas of democracy and popular sovereignty have long enjoyed great popularity, this Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, with its emphasis on the role of the laity, will naturally sound attractive to many. But on further examination a fatal logical flaw in the Orthodox theory comes to light.
Let’s take a closer look here. If the crucial factor in deciding whether a given council’s teaching is infallible or not depends on how it is received by the rank-and-file membership of “the whole Church,” then it becomes critically important to know who, precisely, constitutes “the whole Church.” How are her members to be identified? Who has voting rights, as it were, in this monumental communal decision?
A Murky Question of Membership
In answer to this question, our Eastern friends cannot (and do not) say that for these purposes the whole Church consists of all who profess faith in Christ, or all the baptized. For on that basis the Orthodox would rule out as “un-ecumenical” (and thus, non-infallible) not only the second-millennium councils recognized by Rome and the Catholic Church, but also the seven great councils of the first millennium which they themselves recognize in common with Catholics! For each one of those councils was rejected by significant minorities of baptized persons (Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, etc.) who professed faith in Christ.
It is equally clear that the Orthodox cannot define the whole Church as Catholics do, namely, as consisting of all those Christians who are in communion with Rome, the See of Peter, the “Rock.” For they themselves have not been in communion with Rome since medieval times. Could they perhaps try to define the whole Church in terms of communion with their own patriarchal See of Constantinople? No way. As far as I know, no Orthodox theologian has ever dared to claim that the need for union with Constantinople is part of revelation or divine law. For not only was this see itself in heresy at certain periods of antiquity, it did not even exist for several centuries after revelation was completed in the apostolic age.
In short, any Orthodox attempt to define the whole Church in terms of some empirically verifiable criterion will land our Eastern brethren in impossible absurdities. So the only other course open to them, logically, is the one they have now in fact adopted: They attempt to define the whole Church in terms of an empirically unverifiable criterion, namely, adherence to true, orthodox doctrine. Unlike cities, sayings, and sacraments, doctrinal orthodoxy cannot be recognized as such by any of the five senses. It cannot, as such, be seen, touched, or heard—only discerned in the mind and heart. Thus, if we ask the Orthodox why do they not recognize as constituent parts of the whole Church those baptized, Christ-professing Aryans, Nestorians, etc., who rejected one or more of the seven first-millennium councils, they will respond, “Why, because they were unorthodox, of course! They lapsed into heresy while we—and up till that time the Latin Church under Rome as well—maintained the true faith.”
Now that the Orthodox position regarding infallibility and ecumenical councils has been further specified, we can reformulate it a third time, replacing the expression “the whole Church” at the end of Proposition 2 with another which clarifies what is meant by those three words:
Proposition 3: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.
But here, I am afraid, we come face to face with the fundamental logical flaw in the whole Eastern Orthodox account of how we can know what—if anything—God has revealed to mankind. Since Christ founded his Church on earth to be a visible community, we cannot define her in terms of an invisible criterion—possession of doctrinal truth—without falling into absurdity. The flaw this involves is that of a circular argument—including the term to be defined within the definition itself. This results in a mere tautology: a repetitive proposition that provides no information at all.
We can see this more clearly if we remember that the whole purpose of an infallible church authority is simply to enable Christians to distinguish revealed truth clearly and certainly from falsehood and heresy. Keeping this in mind, we can formulate once again the Eastern Orthodox proposition, rewording Proposition 3 above so as to unpack the word infallible, spelling out its meaning and function:
Proposition 4: Christians can come to know with certainty what is true doctrine by recognizing the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.
The words italicized above lay bare the underlying circularity—the tautology—that vitiates the logical coherence of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. We want to know how to identify true Christian doctrine with certainty, but the proffered solution to our problem assumes we already know the very thing we are seeking to discover. We are being told, “To discover what is true Christian doctrine, you must pay heed the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine”!
Not long after I came to the firm conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy was illogical, so that its claim to infallibility could not be sustained, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church at the Mass of the Easter Vigil in 1972.
A Problem at the Root
It remains only to add that, in the 36 years since I returned to full communion with the one Church founded by Christ, my conviction as a Catholic has only become stronger. For the Orthodox church today is by no means in the same condition as it was then. The very features which had most attracted me to it back then have now largely faded into a twilight of doubt and confusion. For some centuries the tenacity of the Orthodox in adhering strictly to their ancient, stable liturgical traditions, together with their relative isolation from the post-Enlightenment West, combined to act as a quite powerful antidote, in practice, to the effects of the ingrained virus of illogicality that we have just exposed. But in recent decades, with more extensive cultural and ecumenical contacts, and with an increasingly large and active Eastern d.aspora in Western countries, Orthodoxy’s underlying vulnerability to the same liberal and secularizing tendencies in faith, morals, and worship that have devastated the West is becoming more apparent. That virus—an inevitable result of breaking communion with the visible rock of truth and unity constituted by the See of Peter—is now inexorably prodding Orthodoxy toward doctrinal pluralism and disintegration.
A traditionally minded Orthodox apologist might reply, of course, that confusion and dissent on these and many other matters are also rampant within Roman Catholicism, and indeed, to a great extent have spread to Orthodoxy as a result of powerful liberal and neo-modernist influences going largely unchecked in our own communion since Vatican Council II. This objection, unfortunately, is all too well founded as far as it goes. But it misses the vital point for present purposes, which is that the admittedly grave confusion in contemporary Catholicism is not due to its own underlying structure—its own fundamental theology of revelation. It is due rather to what many of us Catholics would see as a temporary weakness at the practical level: the level of Church discipline and government. We have witnessed a failure of many bishops, and arguably even recent popes, at times, to guard and enforce with sufficient resolve that doctrine which remains coherently and infallibly taught in theory and in principle by the Catholic magisterium. A solution to the present problems will not require the reversal of any Catholic doctrine; on the contrary, it will involve the more resolute insistence, in theory and in practice, on our existing doctrines. (This insistence, it is true, may need to include further authoritative papal interpretations of certain Vatican II texts whose ambiguity or lack of clarity betray something of the conflicting pastoral, philosophical, and theological tendencies that were apparent among the Council Fathers themselves.)
In Eastern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, the currently growing problem of internal confusion and division goes down to a deeper level. It is rooted in unsound principle, not just defective practice. It is a problem involving the essential defining feature of the Orthodox communion over against Catholicism, namely, its fateful medieval decision to repudiate the full primacy and authority of that rock established by Christ in the person of Peter and his successors in the See of Rome. Perhaps, if more of our Orthodox brethren can come to recognize the underlying logical flaw in their ecclesiology that I have tried to pinpoint and explain in this article, we shall see more fruitful ecumenical progress toward the restoration of full communion.
And the Roman Catholic church selling indulgences is different?
From the beginning the churches have been off course. I know and understand the protestant churches get off course and are corrected by God. The problem with the RC is it refuses to repent and be corrected.
I think a lot of the religious posters on FR could benefit from reading his chapter on the “maniac” in his classic “Orthodoxy”.
Unfortunately history, tradition, scholarship, and explicit scripture don’t work in your favor.
Simply referring to quotes and arguments in a book will not help. The question must always be whether a large consensus of theologians agree with this thesis and the answer is emphatically in the negative. For sure Benedict XVI- sometimes called the theological Einstein of our times, did not accept this either as Cardinal Ratzinger or as distinguished professor of theology at the University of Rensburg.
First you admitted to the primacy of Rome until the Orthodox breakaway. Let’s say 1054. By this reasoning, the Holy Spirit suddenly changed course, took side, and went with the Orthodox. The absurdity of this is too patent for comment.
Second, you speak to more than seven councils but the additional councils are not recognized by some Eastern Orthodox in the way Councils are defined.
Third, any rebuttals on Eastern orthodoxy are seen as “canned” posts rather than an attempt to rebut the reasoning.
The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and “the seven ecumenical councils”—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.
While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.
One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical.
In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is “accepted by the church” as such. But that test is unworkable:
Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.
Thus the notion of eight or nine Councils is matter of opinion not universally accepted. But most importantly it detracts from Petrine infallibility.
The Pope’s Authority
Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible.
At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.
In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not.
In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).
In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”—in other words, Peter’s love for Christ is tested over the others. When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: “Feed my lambs” (22:15).
Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as “these,” as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.
The external marks of the Catholic Church is its universality just like the mustard tree metaphor used by Christ. You cannot have a broken branch of the tree claiming for itself as the tree.
So you are not going to answer my questions?
Your questions have been answered through many readings of text and treatises but apparently you seek answers in conformance with what selections you choose to put forth.
But in a spirit of unity let me share with you a magnificent article written by America’s foremost Lutheran theologian, Rev. Richard Neuhaus (since passed away and founder of First Things) who converted to Catholicism.
This lecture for Christian unity between East and West was delivered at a leading Orthodox seminary.
I think you will agree with its overall tenor that draws from a symposium of speakers that included Orthodox theologians.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/002-reconciling-east-and-west
I hasten to add a caveat that I intended to include in my immediately preceding post. Pope Leo did not accede to Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon. Nonetheless it was proclaimed by the Council and received all of the other local churches. So it certainly demonstrates that the rest of the Church was not buying Roman claims to anything beyond the honour due the Patriarch of the old Imperial Capital.
I will read your linked article a little later when I have the time to give it appropriate attention. However I certainly missed your response to my questions, especially the one on the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Could you repost the answer or point me to it? I can’t find a single word from you on the subject. Maybe I need new spectacles.
“The Holy Spirit did not depart from the Church. Rome did. The Holy Spirit was not the personal property of the Roman See.”
This statement encapsulates the crux of it all and flies in the face of the scriptural primacy of Peter and his successors that last until the end of time. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has an unbroken line of successors from Peter to this day. Surely, Petrine authority that provided the infallibility in the selection of God’s Word, does not have an expiration date or a termination date based on breakaway branches.
BTW another point I forgot to bring up, and one that I am guessing you were unaware of, is that next year (2016) we are actually going to convene a Great and Holy Council of the Universal Church. It will be the first since 1351 and if all goes well it may end up being the Tenth Holy and Ecumenical Council. The planning has been going on for decades.
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.