It is unfortunate for me to know that Father J was eventually banned, as I know him from elsewhere and believe that he is generally a kind person. As I am not well enough studied I can not truly understand these discussions yet. But I have enjoyed reading this entire "thread".
As pope, Gregory is very clear about and uses effectively his universal jurisdiction which he exercised in both the East and West.
The question is how exactly was this jurisdiction exercised and under which conditions. Was it exercised with a primacy of love? (whatever that means, perhaps Dr. Papadakis knows)
In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that "without the authority and the consent of the apostolic see, none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force."
What this means I do not know. No matters are binding without the apostolic see's consent? Is apostolic see meaning Rome? It is too vague.
Gregory wrote this letter to the bishops of the region of Dalmatia, a Greek speaking Roman province.
Dalmatia was not greek speaking ever. This is absolutely untrue. It only spoke Illyrian, Latin or Slavic. It is sad how so many today have such little understanding of the history of the lands where christianity blossomed in its first thousand years
The historian Theodore Mommsen wrote (in his The Provinces of the Roman Empire) that all Dalmatia was fully romanised and Latin-speaking by the fourth century.
I do like "The insistence on the teaching of Humanae Vitae" thats something I believe the Orthodox should use as a role model.
Perhaps the best thing to occur would be for all parties to go back and come to a common definition of the terms. When one speaks of “universal authority” what exactly is one speaking about? Are they speaking about a “right of final appeal”? Or of “universal ordinary jurisdiction”?
Precisely right, this is where the solutions begin to be formed, the end of vagueness, the beginnng of precise understanding.
Previous Topic
Index