Was the Roman Church preeminent just because of the city's civil status? Was St Peter ever its bishop? Orestes Brownson shows Orthodox apologist Guettée is grasping at straws.
If, as you say, there hasn't actually been a pope since at least the mid '60s, and we show no signs of getting one anytime soon, then who exactly are the Eastern Orthodox in schism with?
But your article focuses the vast majority of its attention on the papacy, and according to your opinion there hasn't actually been a pope within the living memory of the majority of the human race. So who are the Eastern Orthodox supposed to be in communion with?
The Holy See, and the rest of the Catholic Church that are still living. I get you might think our views are wrong or even silly, but I'm struggling to see these as serious questions.
It is an extremely serious question and it goes right to the heart of the matter: how can you be in communion in with an office, the Holy See, that doesn't (and at present allegedly can't) have an occupant? It is hardly an advertisement to those in the East for the divine institution of the papacy to say that all of its occupants within living memory have been false claimants who have tricked 99.9% of the world's population into believing that they actually were the pope.
And therein lies the problem: the sede doctrine is apparently that one must submit without question to the pope's every little whim on every question. Until, of course, he does something you don't like. Then you, on your own authority that you got from who knows where, declare that he is not the pope and basically make yourself pope in his place.
"And therein lies the problem: the sede doctrine is apparently that one must submit without question to the pope's every little whim on every question."
No it isn't. Not at all. And if you continue to behave badly in this combox you will be banned. You've already been warned Eric.
The Eastern Schismatics refused to be governed by Peter ultimately out of pride. Their fathers submitted to Peter, but they refused. Their return to unity necessarily involves an amount of humiliation, of recognizing that both they and their sects were wrong to oppose the Principle of Unity. This requires humility, which is hard to find.
If, as you say, there hasn't actually been a pope since at least the mid '60s, and we show no signs of getting one anytime soon, then who exactly are the Eastern Orthodox in schism with?
The Catholic Church, of course.
But your article focuses the vast majority of its attention on the papacy, and according to your opinion there hasn't actually been a pope within the living memory of the majority of the human race. So who are the Eastern Orthodox supposed to be in communion with?
The Holy See, and the rest of the Catholic Church that are still living. I get you might think our views are wrong or even silly, but I'm struggling to see these as serious questions.
Also, it wasn't my article but Browson's.
It is an extremely serious question and it goes right to the heart of the matter: how can you be in communion in with an office, the Holy See, that doesn't (and at present allegedly can't) have an occupant? It is hardly an advertisement to those in the East for the divine institution of the papacy to say that all of its occupants within living memory have been false claimants who have tricked 99.9% of the world's population into believing that they actually were the pope.
Erc S's question is a legtimate one. I posed this scenario to a SSPX priest and a sede priest as follows:
"If the Russian Orthodox wanted to corporately be cleaved to Rome again, what should they do?"
They both answered, "They should come to us."
And therein lies the problem: the sede doctrine is apparently that one must submit without question to the pope's every little whim on every question. Until, of course, he does something you don't like. Then you, on your own authority that you got from who knows where, declare that he is not the pope and basically make yourself pope in his place.
"And therein lies the problem: the sede doctrine is apparently that one must submit without question to the pope's every little whim on every question."
No it isn't. Not at all. And if you continue to behave badly in this combox you will be banned. You've already been warned Eric.
Alright. Then, in charity and so I don't make any more mistakes, please correct me as to where I was wrong.
The Eastern Schismatics refused to be governed by Peter ultimately out of pride. Their fathers submitted to Peter, but they refused. Their return to unity necessarily involves an amount of humiliation, of recognizing that both they and their sects were wrong to oppose the Principle of Unity. This requires humility, which is hard to find.