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.
“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.”
Well, I would expect a Latin to believe this. Given the de facto (and we will see it de jure soon I believe) reunion of the Melkites in Lebanon with the Orthodox, the point today has very little meaning, so little in fact that it does not prevent intercommunion and common celebration of Pascha down there.
“This is a novelty completely against the canons that has no historical precedence in the undivided church.”
You may be correct though that is precisely the direction the present talks between Rome and the Orthodox hierarchs is heading. It is a not uncommon practice among the Orthodox patriarchs. The point of the discussions is finding an acceptable vehicle for the appropriate exercise of the Petrine office.
“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.”
From an Ecumenical Council standpoint it doesn’t. The consensus of all the Orthodox at Chalcedon was set forth in the canons of the Council. That some Africans disagreed, or better said, appeared to have disagreed (along with some others) doesn’t change what The Church accepted as the consensus and AXIOS of the Laos tou Theou. The same was true at Florence. The West thought the False Union was fine, but the consensus of the Orthodox laity was otherwise.
“Please show the act by which Rome allegedly went into schism from the universal church.”
The easiest example is the adoption of the filioque, but there’s quite a list as you know.