Reddit reviews Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism
We found 2 Reddit comments about Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Rome and the Eastern Churches by Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P.
Older and a bit more polemical is The Orthodox Eastern Church by Fr. Adrian Fortescue.
Edward Feser has good books and talks that deal with the existence of God. The Thomistic Institute has a number of them as well as others by different professors and dominicans here
You are welcome, I am glad you liked the article. As for more information here is the best I can do.
As for your first couple of questions, these articles and visuals that I wrote may be able:
As for whether or not the East acknowledge the authority of the Pope and the Magesterium... the short answer is yes they do... but begrudgingly. They do this because they believe Unity of Christ's people is more important than disputing over something that will never happen. And that something is the threat of the Pope walking into the Eparchy(diocese) of some Eastern Catholic Bishop and changing something just because he is the Pope. All Easterners (Orthodox and Catholic), except for the Moscow Orthodox Church, recognize the Pope as the first among equals and that he has a universal jurisdiction (to some extent... See Council of Revana) . For example, at the First Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef refused to sign the decree of Pastor Aeternus concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. When questioned by Rome on the matter, the Patriarch determined that he would only sign the decree with this caveat added: “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs,” as he knew he must protect the prerogatives of the Eastern hierarchy. However, the Latin Church claims that that Papal jurisdiction is immediate and without fallibility in some instances still. But if this were the case, and the Pope did have such jurisdiction, in 1054 the Pope would have abolished some of the most dear traditions of the East and thus that was the last straw breaking the Camels back..the camel being East/West relations.. Also the sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade did not help mend relations several years later. So in the end, no one seems to know if the doctrines behind Vatican I/II claiming the Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction of Immediate action are actually doctrine, but no one will out right say that. We put together a great series (that we will start promoting) on the Catholic/Orthodox relationship trying to get at the heart of this problem.. but alas we got very political answers.
TL;DR When talking about Papal Infallibility it depends who you ask and what his point of reference is. Most in this thread would say yes as it is a proclaimed dogma from an ecumenical (define ecumenical) council of the universal Church. Some here and many elsewhere will say no because it was not an enunciated belief of the Catholic Church when union was established and the council was not ecumenical and it is therefore a local teaching that only applies within the Latin Church.
That project can be found here at SisterChurches.tv
To get an idea of the level of seriousness this project is, we interviewed:
Other Articles Include:
I hope that helps. God Love you. - Dominic Cassella, The Catholic Dormitory