Replies

link here

Selective reading, indeed. A short glance at this document shows where all the FR apologetics get their out-of-context quotes. Predictably, such words that don't fit into their preconceived formula are left unbolded so as to remain invisible at a glance. One such quote left out is where the Bishop of Rome is called Paul, not Peter.

"To Coelestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul!" (Council of Ephesus)

Of course, the author of this amateur piece of apologia, had to leave that unbolded, because +Cyril was the Bishop of Alexandria, and +Celestine the Bishop of Rome -- so in this case, both are mentioned as equals, successors of +Paul.

Another line left out (conveniently) "To Coelestine of one mind with the synod!" In other words, the Pope is of one mind with the Synod, not the other way around.

Kolo seems to think that the theological issue is secondary, and suggests that the issue of Papal Supremacy is the cruicial one. Without resolving that first, there can be no Ecumenical Council that will hammer out theological issues. +Benedict XVI seems to have made it a priority by the same reasoning.

But, at the same time, the Orthodox Church never denied that the Bishop of Rome is first in honor, or that he is the presiding bishop of an Ecumenical Council. The issue of Papacy is its suggested infallibility. As long as they claim an infallible Pope (and they must!), there can be no reunion.

The real problem, as I see it, is that this Patriarch is outside the Church from the Orthodox point of view -- because of theology of the Latin Church under his jurisdiction.

So, while his place in the Church is undisputed (set in stone by an Ecumenical Council, to which we are bound to adhere), and his Apostolicity is undisputed, he is nevertheless out of (Eucharistic) communion with the Orthodox, and therefore outside of the Orthodox Faith that his predecessors once belonged to.

So, whether we agree on his (in)fallibility or not is not the impediment to his recognition. The infallibility is a theological matter, and therefore subject to and not for an Ecumenical Council.

The disastrous effects of the Vatican I really come to surface here. We cannot hammer out the unity of Faith except through an EC, and we cannot have an EC until the Bishop of Rome calls one, but he can't call one because he is not in communion with the Orthodox. It's that chicken/egg thing.

The only way this may be possible, as many of us have repeated here and elsewhere, is for the Church to simply turn back the hands of time and return to the Church of seven Councils and start afresh, with all innovations given to the EC to resolve. That will never happen. The RCC will simply not renounce one thousand years of its history, and +Benedict XVI made it clear that this is not it either.

Rather, it is an exercise in futility and pride. I think it would be more honest if we simply proclaimed each other outside the Church, separate for good, recognize each other as irreconcilably divorced, and let the gates of hell show us which Church was true. But, judging from the fact that the Church is in violation of the commandant to be united could be disastrous for both sides. It's a failure no matter how we look at it. All of Christianity, that is.