co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Thursday, April 15, 2021
Dimond Brothers on EO
The Real History Of “Orthodoxy”
12th April 2021 | vaticancatholic.com
12:04 As far as I gather byzantine ecclesiology:
* the patriarch has jurisdiction over all of his patriarchate (to which Kiev metropoly and by extension Moscow belonged)
* he can give new bishops and even patriarchates in areas where so far no missionaries had come
* but he cannot interfere in a patriarchate already established outside his own
* in these powers he is heir of the popes of Rome from "back when they were Orthodox" ("before filioque and azymes").
It's a bit in politics like British Crown could (or can):
* exercise some jurisdiction over all of the Commonwealth
* and over places where Brits start colonising
* but cannot interfere in a French or Spanish colony, nor in United States where the independence is already given
* and in this respect is heir of the Roman Empire.
In other words, the idea is not contradictory in itself. However, it was contradicted with Bartholomew giving a tomos to Ukraine, recognised by Orthodox to have previously been under Moscow.
It can be added, that the patriarchate of Constantinople exists as a tomos from that of Rome.
It can be added also, in the time of Innocent II, the Pope was not claiming direct immediate jurisdiction in places in the West, notably Holy Roman Empire, he was claiming the right to adjudicate when appeals had been made to him.
13:03 They do not fail to see it's the Pope, they are just declaring a very longstanding sedevacancy since some time after Leo III (whom they honour as a saint) and before or since St. Leo IX (since he "schismatically" or "heretically" interfered in Constantinople for Western clergy celebrating in unleavened bread).
They give the see of Constantinople the role that St. Robert Bellarmine gives to Cardinals : a standin in case of non-occupation of Papal see.
17:45 Good analysis of Matthew 18:18 in relation to Matthew 16:19!
Paul Balaster liked to quote Matthew 16 as if the passage ended in verse 18.
20:46 What do you think of ROCOR?
24:20 Where do you think the Harlot is more probably considering the following:
* the Vatican II Sect is larger;
* but EO has a greater percentage of actual definite apostates.
One could go on with Anglicans, Muslims or Jews too, in each case, except Muslims, smaller than the previous.
27:10 Jeszcze Polska, nie zginiela ... in 2018, Poland had 3 abortions per 1000 live births, Russia 353 ... the least bad four were in order Poland, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia, the bad five were Bulgaria, Georgia (not the US state, but where Stalin came from), Moldova, Romania, Russia.
I think I see more and more reasons for coming back from the schismatics ...
As I already did, to make myself clear. First to FSSPX, now to Pope Michael.
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 5:29 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment