“Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops.”
Not so far as we are concerned. Indeed, it is just that opinion, among others, which prevents a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church.
“Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.”
Not so far as we are concerned. The Patriarchs can and have acted as a Synod with the EP as primus. The most recent example being the removal of Irenaeus.
“If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch.”
That doesn’t follow at all, so far as I can see. And By the excommunication of Cyril VI, Rome’s opinion, it being in schism so far as we were concerned, was of no consequence.
This all started with the comment that the Maronite cardinal is the “Patriarch of Antioch”. He is not the Patriarch of Antioch in any traditional sense of the word. He is not the successor of any member of the Pentarchy. He is the Patriarch of Antioch for the Maronites but only for the Maronites. I say this, btw, with the greatest respect and admiration for the personal qualities of +Nasrallah.
I concede this point. As I stated earlier, I had confused him with the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch who is the legitimate successor of the ancient Patriarch of Antioch, the imposition of Sylvester by the Patriarch of Constantinople being uncanonical.
“Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops.”
Not so far as we are concerned. Indeed, it is just that opinion, among others, which prevents a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church.
“Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.”
Not so far as we are concerned. The Patriarchs can and have acted as a Synod with the EP as primus. The most recent example being the removal of Irenaeus.
Please give an example of the united patriarchs acting as a senate for the universal church prior to the schism. This is a novelty completely against the canons that has no historical precedence in the undivided church.
“If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch.”
That doesn’t follow at all, so far as I can see.
Please explain how the judgment of the Laos tou Theou of the Greeks in rejecting an Ecumenical council has an authority that is not shared by the Laos tou Theou of the Egyptians.
Rome’s opinion, it being in schism so far as we were concerned…
Please show the act by which Rome allegedly went into schism from the universal church.