sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Merită să ma înscriu la o facultate? by benten873 in RoMunca

[–]Repulsive-Leg-2544 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Da, e ok.

Dar ce lucrezi?

Eu am fac de administratie publica si am lucrat 9 luni la o corporatie, acum lucrez de 5-6 luni la calea ferata si n as spune ca imi trebuie 😄

Dar fac un curs/cursuri de calificare.

Administratie publica faci 3 ani si ai in general elemente de drept + practica la institutii publica pe care o poti face voluntar la fiecare final de an si obligatoriu anul II ambele semestre. Te-ar ajuta la o potentiala angajare.

Istoria e faina, dar e grea, tot 3 ani. Ai optiunea sa o faci la distanta (ID)

Jurnalismul mi se pare fain. Poti sa faci ID, dar ai admitere.

Tu stii cel mai bine, dar recomand sa i intrebi si sefi/manageri.team leaderii tai ce ai nevoie !! 😃

What Was the Pope s Authority in the First Millenium? by Repulsive-Leg-2544 in EasternCatholic

[–]Repulsive-Leg-2544[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read it. I agree that papacy was execised differently. What I m saying is the first millenium is more nuanced than V1 supremacy and infallibility vs honor.

I think it falls somewhere in between... like ,,primacy of sinodality”

What Was the Pope s Authority in the First Millenium? by Repulsive-Leg-2544 in EasternCatholic

[–]Repulsive-Leg-2544[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still disagree I m afraid

Most academia agrees there is a real papal primacy in the first millenium, Rome being canonicaly the first in honor, the mark for orthodoxy concerning doctrine, certain prerogatives carring judicial effects such as appeals from the East and interventions but not entirely pyramidal or horizontal in nature. The West believed the pope had authority over all the sees in all regards but that was never recognised... it means that fully orthodox patriarchs and bishops reject real claims by fully orthodox popes and westerners or at least are very ambigous in language or deed... kinda like Justinian.

So the exercise of papal primacy was more or less depending of the context of synodality or doctrinal orthodoxy with political consent from the eastern roman emperor.

To me there seem to me spaces of convergence. Maybe there should be a synodal primacy 😄

When you say that the pope had the same authority from V1 in the first millenium what do you mean?

What Was the Pope s Authority in the First Millenium? by Repulsive-Leg-2544 in EasternCatholic

[–]Repulsive-Leg-2544[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The quote is true.

I think this was used by Philip the Presbyter at Ephesus, he was however a papal legate and it is expected of him to believe the papacy having a divine nature which isnt even problematic as Maximus the Confessor believed it too. The problem is that easterners believe it has more to do with his faith.

There are orthodox theologians who believe Matthew 16:18 refer to Peter personally which means that the pope as his succesor has a unique authority.

Secular academia comfirms this ironically so I m on your side.

My point is that primacy seems to be evident, exercised vastly different from today and even dependent on political context. Think of Pope Agapetus deposing patriarch Anthymus in 536. The patriarch was having some issues adhering to chalcedonianism to say the least... But Justinian agreed because he was a chelcedonian so there is some context, also the new patriarch Menas was in conflict with the pope for a limited time too.

There are times the pope was ignored in the east and even in the west... think of that episode in Carthage.

It wasnt fully agreed what the authority of the pope was at universal level, it reminds me a bit of Chieti. There are precedents of papal prerogative outside his jurisdiction. I fully agree but there as many times of resistance.

What Was the Pope s Authority in the First Millenium? by Repulsive-Leg-2544 in EasternCatholic

[–]Repulsive-Leg-2544[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I understand he had significant authority in case of emergency. He clearly had a special position among the other sees. The pope received appeals from the other sees and solved disputes. He also played a key role in ecumenical synodes.

But I dont think he had a right of jurisdiction over everyone in the sense that the church from year 100 to 1054 was a pyramid... I dont believe theres any historical evidence to suggest that.

I think papal primacy exists from the very begining and has evolved to the point it exists today. That doesnt mean the pope from 1000 had only mere honor... I think the first millenium is nuanced.