And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.
Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.
But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.
I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.
Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.
Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.
I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.
Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas
inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.
Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous? If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other? If there isn't to be a head of the Church, then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology. It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what? I can't think of any reason
you'd want to have Bishops, except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church, and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs. Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met. Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church. Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?