So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered. So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome? Huh
It's never been acceptable to contradict the Pope of Rome on a matter of Church doctrine or canon law, once Rome has handed down a decision.
Only if Rome is exposing Orthoodxy. But then it is the Orthodoxy, not Rome, that is determinative.
The conduct of Saint Clement I, Saint Victor I, Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, Saint Leo I, and Saint Gregory I, while it may have been conciliar in style makes clear that in substance they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction.
what they thought or felt is of interest only to themselves.
St. Clement I taught the same Orthodox ecclesiology that St. Ignatius I did.
St. Victor I was "rebuked" by the entire Church.
Between SS. Victor and Innoncent I we might mention that Rome recognized Paulinus, and not St. Meletius, as Patriarch of Antioch. Antioch, and the rest of the East, held fast to St. Meletius, who opened the Second Ecumenical Council, which chose, over Rome's objection, his successor St. Flavian.
St. Innocent I was right, but ignored even by the Ultramontanist Jerome.
St. Gelasius I: you meant the False
St. Leo wanted the Council of Chalcedon to adopt his Tome as its definition. Not only did the Fathers write their own definition, but they accepted the Tome only after it had been examined for Orthodoxy by a committee of a hundred fathers. St. Leo whines to the empress that even his own suffragans acknowledged canon 28.
St. Gregory I complained about the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" and rejected any claims to a "universal bishop." But Constantinople kept the title, and the Vatican latter promoted the pope as "universal bishop," i.e. "the highest authority in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction."
As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?). The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO. As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.You're referring to the Chaldean Catholic Church, I believe.
Your communion agreement with them makes you one as far as we are concerned.
The Orders in the church of England have been in schism from the Catholic Church ever since it followed the Vatican into schism. That happened long before King Edward and Abp. Cramner.The view that schism invalidates apostolic succession is called the donatist heresy.
I am aware what defects the Vatican claims in Anglican orders. I am also aware that it doesn't like that the Orthodox Church looks at the Vatican's orders in the same way. You claim that the Anglicans changed the Faith. We agree on that. The Vatican also changed the Faith, misonstruing the priesthood as flowing from the pontifex maximus and personal property which adheres to the recepriant (which he can take with him into schism) which puts you into the same boat, as long as you persist in your schism and heresy.
No, its called the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, as taught, for example by St. Cyprian. The Donatists held that apostasy, even if repented from, invalidated the apostolic succession of the lapsi.
And the Vatican did not change the faith.
There is no evidence from the first millenium that the authority of Rome could be contradicted once it had made an official decision,
I've cited several above, which could be multiplied.
and much evidence to the contrary.
Often claimed, never provided.
Roman Pontiffs regularly interfered in the affairs of Churches outside their own jurisdiction and passed down judgments on the Orthodoxy of other Patriarchs, as, for example, when Pope Saint Gelasius I instructed that the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople should be struck from the diptychs for his embrace of monophysitism. Acacius' successor, Patriarch Euphemius, and Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I both protested, but the Pontiff's ruling was firm, and they were compelled to obey.
When Pope Gelasius I died in 496 , the Acacian schism continued for two decades more:
Then John Talaia, exiled from Alexandria, arrived at Rome and gave a further account of what was happening in the East. The pope wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explain his conduct (Epp. iii et iv, ibid., pp. 239-241). The legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed, then forced to receive Communion from Acacius in a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Monophysites named in the diptychs. The pope, having heard of this from the Acoemeti (akoimetoi, sleepless) monks at Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates, deposed and excommunicated Acacius (Epp. vi, vii, viii, ibid., 243 sq.). Acacius retorted by striking Felix's name from his diptychs. Thus began the Acacian schism that lasted thirty-five years (484-519). The Acoemeti monks alone at Constantinople stayed in communion with the Holy See; Acacius put their abbot, Cyril, in prison. Acacius himself died in schism in 489. His successor, Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-90), tried to reconcile himself with the pope, but refused to give up communion with Monophysites and to omit Acacius's name in his diptychs. Zeno died in 491; his successor, Anastasius I (491-518), began by keeping the policy of the Henoticon, but gradually went over to complete Monophysitism. Euphemius (490-496), patriarch after Flavitus, again tried to heal the schism, restored the pope's name to his diptychs, denounced Peter Mongus, and accepted Chalcedon; but his efforts came to nothing, since he, too, refused to remove the names of Acacius and Flavitas from the diptychs (see Euphemius of Consstantinople). Gelasius I (492-96) succeeded Felix II at Rome and maintained the same attitude, denouncing absolutely the Henoticon and any other compromise with the heretics. Eventually, when the Emporer Anastasius died (518), the schism was healed. His successor, Justin I (518-27), was a Catholic; he at once sought reunion with Rome. John II, the patriarch (518-20), was also willing to heal the schism. In answer to their petitions, Pope Hormisdas (514-23) sent his famous formula. This was then signed by the emperor, the patriarch, and all the bishops at the capital. On Easter day, 24 March, 519, the union was restored. Monophysite bishops were deposed or fled, and the empire was once more Catholic, till the troubles broke out again under Justinian I (527-65).
The bishops of the capital signed, but the bishops outside refused. The archbishop of Thessalnoica, then in Rome's patriarchate, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two and stomped on it. The troubles were Justinian holding the Fifth Ecumenical Council over the strenous objections of Pope Vigilius, whom the Council struck from the diptychs, until he accpepted its decrees.
Prior to Patriarch Photios, there is no evidence in the history of the Church that it was acceptable to contradict Papal authority.
Words of theirs [the bishops throughout the world] are extant, sharply rebuking [Pope]Victor .http://rosecreekvillage.com/shammah/archives/111
Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398. http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
The Fathers gathered at Constantinople in 381 to write the Creed. 381 falls between 343 and 398. And St. John, St. Basil and others received ordination from St. Meletius.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council met over the Pope of Rome's objection, and struck him from the diptychs.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius.
We can go on.
Indeed, the closest thing the easterners came come up with, the posthumous anathema placed on Pope Honorius I, is condemning him for failing to exercise his authority because he did not excommunicate the monothelite patriarchs of the east.
Sort of shows the "petrine ministry" of strengthening the brethren is nought if it strengthens heresy as well.
Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "Magisterium" simply refers to the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church most assuredly did not come in to being only a few centuries ago, and the Orthodox have most certainly always held the teaching authority of the Church to be infallible.
We also continue to hold that as part of the Church, not a part of the Church.