“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.
Hopefully this could become a model for similar moves to improve relations between Rome and Constantinople/Moscow.
The point of the discussions is finding an acceptable vehicle for the appropriate exercise of the Petrine office.
And this is the direction that the discussions should go. The question should have always been on the proper exercise of the universal Petrine office within the context of a subsidiarity that respects the local office of the bishops, not as to whether there is indeed a Petrine office.
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.
I do not understand. A consensus was reached by the bishops at Florence but this was negated because the Greek and Russian laity rejected it but the same rejection by the Egyptian laity does not negate Chalcedon. Please explain.
The easiest example [of schism] is the adoption of the filioque, but there’s quite a list as you know.
The proper charge here should be heresy (a matter that is in dispute), not schism. But the local bishop of Constantinople has no jurisdiction or authority to pass judgment on the bishops of the West. This complaint, in accord with ancient practice, should have been brought before a general council. Indeed, the West has always sought to resolve the dispute in a council but it has been the East that has refused this. Thus if there is any schism it must be on the part of the Orthodox bishops who have rejected the authority of the universal college of bishops even without going into the question of communion with the pope.