Thanks, boatbums, for an apt and reasonably focused comment. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Orthodox/Byzantine scholars argue that the "Monarchical" form of Church governance (as opposed to the "Conciliar/Collegial" form) derive from Gratian's reliance on the false decretals.
Bless you, now we're finally getting to something that can be fruitfully discussed. Frankly, I regret that we all sniffed Eau de Red Herring and tore down a rabbit trail yelping at Pseudo-Mary-Ann when we should have been discussing Aristeides Papadakis!!
[Incidentally sasportas, this is the very first time somebody clued us in on what this dispute is all about: the monarchical vs conciliar form of church governance, or in shorthand, Catholic vs Orthodox.There has been a lot, a whole lot of combing through the canons pertaining to the exact authority of popes, bishops-individual, and bishops-conciliar, since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). It has been "the" top project for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, which is proceeding diligently right to the present day. I just read some remarks by Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church (Link), at once a good friend of Catholic Christians and an exceedingly able proponent of the Orthodox critique of the papacy. (Metropolitan Hilarion was the Russians' representative at Pope Francis' papal consecration --- deeply involved in ecumnical dialogue.)I honestly think all the shoot-the-messenger stuff in the first dozen posts came out because we didn't catch that this is about a serious, and very present-day, disputed question in the Church. It looked like just a trawl through an irrelevant 9th century archive by a sketchy self-identified ex-nun, and "ex-nun" hits the buzzer for most of us: "Oh crap, not another Sister Mary Dingbat!"
Now, finally, to the substance of the thing.)
OK, I'm off to the Social Security office to present them with my wedding certificate and straighten out another can'o'worms.
Will re-join the discussion when I get back! Toodle-oo!
I honestly think all the shoot-the-messenger stuff in the first dozen posts came out because we didn't catch that this is about a serious, and very present-day, disputed question in the Church. It looked like just a trawl through an irrelevant 9th century archive by a sketchy self-identified ex-nun, and "ex-nun" hits the buzzer for most of us: "Oh crap, not another Sister Mary Dingbat!"
No matter what people think of the person carrying the message, if they're right, they're right. If they have the facts to back themselves up, slandering the messenger isn't going to change THAT. It backfires on the slanderer.
All it's going to do is discredit the person doing the slandering because they are going to be perceived as 1) not having anything of substance to say. IOW, they can't actually refute it.
And 2) Shoot themselves in the foot for credibility.