Very much a strawman, and so is this posting above. Here's what I wrote: "What I said was that Cronos is a Schismatic Eastern Orthodox, not a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. The Ruthenians, Melkites, Maronites are members of the Roman Church".
I said they were members of the Roman Church. That is the name of the Catholic Church. There are different rites, but is not canonically and technically incorrect to call the “Maronites, Melkites” part of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. That is the description of the Catholic Church used in the 1st Vatican Coucil, and by Pius XII in Mystici Corporus.
re:I think it is improper to call The Eastern Orthodox schismatics. The mutual excommunications that were levied towards each other were lifed by the Pope on the Catholic side and the Patriarck of Constantinopile on the Orthodox side.
They are schismatics, and thus I call them what they are, it is called reality. I do that to distinguish them from the Eastern Catholics. The "mutual lifting of the excommunications was a canard,a fraud, a deception, it is a meaningless, "nice gesture". I did a whole thread on it.
The LIFTING THE ANATHEMAS HOAX
(DECEMBER 7, 1965)- THE ‘LIFTING’ OF THE ANATHEMAS-
On 7 December 1965, Cardinal Jan Willebrands read to the bishops of Vatican II the declaration of Pope Paul VI lifting the excommunication that the Envoy of Pope Leo IX had imposed on the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in 1054. At the same time, in the Patriarchal Cathedral of Saint George in Constantinople, the synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate ‘lifted’ the anathemas imposed on the papal ambassadors in 1054 by Patriarch Michael Cerularius and the patriarchal synod of Constantinople and subsequently ratified and adopted by all orthodox churches.
This document above of no juridical value whatsoever, just a nice gesture is all it is. Michael Cerularius remains an excommunicated.
1) For one, the Patriarch of Constantinople has no authority to bind any of the other Orthodox Churches, as a matter of fact his Patriarchy consists of only 3.5 million people.
2) Pope Paul VI has no authority to ‘lift” the excommunication of Michael Cerularius, since he died almost 1000 years ago. You can't “lift” the excommunication of a dead man, he is already in hell for all eternity. It's a different matter if a pope were to undertake to disprove the validity of an excommunication (like Joan of Arc), but that is not what Paul VI did, he just simply signed the declaration above.
verdugo:
So you are using Vatican I terminology only. Hmmmm, so Pope Benedict’s terminology does not suffice for you is that correct.
As for what you said, it was the Patriarch of Constantinopile who excommuncated the Cardinal in 1054 and vice a versa [Can a Cardinal legitimately excommunicate a Patriarch] which is what Cardinal Humbert did along with the other papal legates. In other words, they had “no authority to do what they did” and then the Patriarch, i.e.Cerularius excommunicated the Cardinal Humbert and the other papal legates.
So Pope Paul VI and the Patriarch of Constantinopile nullified the anathamas, which how do you no they were not valid for God is outside of time and how can you a traditionalist Catholic be so quick to put Patriarch Cerularius in Hell or Heaven for that matter. What happen to Purgatory Verdugo? certaintly you are not rejecting that are you so maybe the Patriarch is in purgatory. Who knows? which means you don’t know.
So yes Pope Paul VI has more authority to nullify an illegitiamate excommunication levied by Cardinal Humbert against the Patriarch of Constantinopile because that authority in Catholic theology could only be used by the Pope or a Council of the Church. Cardinal Humbert had no authority to do what he did and for that matter, I don’t think the Patriarch had the authority to do what he did.