www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Byzantine Catholics identifying themselves as Orthodox?

I do not believe that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction; instead, he is the protos (i.e., the first among equals) among the ancient patriarchs.

So says a document that has absolutely no authority. Refer to an authoritative document which states clearly that Rome acknowledges no universal jurisdiction.

Todd, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to assert your position. You can assert it as a hope or as a personal belief that it should be so. But you cannot assert that it is fact is currently true. You are misleading people and not being honest.

I cannot prove a negative. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the teachings of the ancient Fathers that would accord the bishop or Rome universal jurisdiction. That concept arose in the West only during the second millennium and was promoted by the Latin Church at the First Vatican Council in 1870, but that council is not ecumenical, and so its teachings are only theologoumena.

I may, as you put it, "do a lot of mental gymnastics," but you mistakenly equate being Catholic with being Latin.

God bless,
Todd

As long as you only assert this as your unverifyable opinion, that is fine. Otherwise you are presenting clear falsehoods.

Father,

When did God give you access to the secrets of my heart?

God bless,
Todd

Those who read my posts are free to consult the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and I believe quite firmly that if they do that, they will see that the bishop of Rome never possessed "universal jurisdiction" or any "jurisdiction" in the Eastern Churches whatsoever. The legal views of the Western Church, especially those focused upon the concept of "papal jurisdiction," have never been accepted by the East.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,



Well, Todd, now we are getting somewhere. Now if you could just furnish a quote from an EC catechism on the number of ecumenical councils, we would be all set.

While I think your position is problematic, Todd, I have no problem with your right to hold your belief. What is truly unacceptible in the name of honesty and integrity is to present your personal opinions as the teaching of the Catholic Church. Neither you nor I have the authority to do so. There is a proper syntax to theological discussion as you must know. And you also need to be advised that you violate this syntax regularly. And that is dishonest.

Father,

I do not accuse you of "dishonesty," although I think that you are in error. That said, I would appreciate it if you would please refrain from making judgments about my intentions -- something of course that you can know nothing about -- and stop calling me "dishonest."

God bless,
Todd

Father,

With all due respect, this argument reminds me of an adage we have in the military: "As soon as you have to tell someone, or remind someone, that you are in charge, you aren't." These sorts of arguments carry uneven weight with Eastern Christians and are sadly almost as likely to push Eastern Catholics into schism as they are to solve a juridical question.

Can I ask why papal infallibility for ALL Catholics, rather than just Roman Catholics, is so important for you to prove in this forum? I sincerely want to understand what drives this debate because, at least personally, it just generates sympathy for the Orthodox in my case.

Todd,

Stop misrepresenting your personal opinions as the legitimate teaching of the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Fr. J.

Father,

I do not need to produce an "EC catechism" that states the number of ecumenical councils (although the Melkite Church's catechetical materials [melkite.org] on their official website say that there have only been seven ecumenical councils), because it is the Byzantine liturgy itself, which commemorates the seven ecumenical councils alone, that proves my position to be correct. The law of prayer is the law of belief.

Father,

Stop limiting the Catholic Church to the Latin Church.

God bless,
Todd

I think the Catholic teaching on infallibility only generates sympathy for the Orthodox among those who already have severed their sympathy for Rome.

Infallibility for only part of the Church makes as much sense as the oxymoron "relative truth." A truth is true or it is false. It cannot be true for some and false for others. Truth is one, or it is not truth. To say some Catholic are free to disbelieve an infallible teaching is absurd in my point of view. Holding such contrary views is just untenable in Catholic theology or anyting else.

The Anglicans who are experts at the violation of the law of non contradiction are seeing their Church blow up in their faith. Todd's position damns and dooms the Catholic Church.

What I am asking of Todd is nothing unreasonable. I simply ask that he state his opinion as opinion and not the teaching of the Catholic Church. There is no church on earth whose teaching is more articulately expressed. If one wants to makes claims about what the Catholic Church teaches, one bears the burden of proof. And that is an easy burden as the Church's teaching is readily available online.

Please do not make me out as the unreasonable one. I am only asking for a standard recognizable to any high school student who has written a footnote.

Ah, but the Melkite position has been rejected by Rome. Try a Roman document that acknowledges the ZI position.