Posted on 05/14/2005 9:29:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Grand Inquisitor?
I just got back from another foray into the Dreadful Diocese of Richmond ... I hear tell that the new Bishop is doing some good things, but evidence of same was nonexistent at the Parish I usually must attend when I go there. That area needs it's own particular inquisitor for a couple of generations. If those poor folks even know the word "orthodox" at all, they just think it's a name for the Greeks on Granby Street.
I focused more on the patriarchy because I thought that was the main thrust of this thread. This is not to deny that the papacy is a serious issue in ecumenical discourse. In fact, I believe that ultimately it is the crucial one. Your appeal to "historical legitimacy" begs the question, for the issue concerns the source and criterion of legitimacy itself. Your putative solution (conciliarism) is not really a solution, for of itself it provides no criterion for determining which councils are legitimate. Any issue, in any domain of discourse whatsoever, is "divisive"; that is precisely why it is an issue. But in the unique case of the papacy it concerns the very means of resolving the division itself. It is a metaphysical principle that the many are resolved into one, and that the principle of unity must itself be one. That is equally true in the case of ecclesiastical unity.
Returning to the original theme of papacy and patriarchy, I would simply point out that the cause of ecumenism is well served by distinguishing between essentials and unessentials, especially where these may have been confused. In that sense, I would still suggest that a development in the direction of multiple patriarchies or jurisdiction would be a step in the right direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.