Author Topic: Koch agrees that the Greek Orthodox were never in schism... (Read 432 times)

SkidRowCatholic · « **on:** **Today** at 10:47:09 AM »

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-01/lifting-anathemas-60-years-paul-vi-anathagoras-koch-getcha.html

What a relief for so many Orthodox to know they were never in schism...

Papal Bull of Excommunication in 1054

"We thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend Pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.
Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN."

Koch’s claim that the 1054 papal act “targeted three specific individuals” is flatly contradicted by the primary text: the parchment placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia names Michael Cerularius, Leo of Achrida, and Constantine and then expressly condemns “and all their followers in the aforementioned errors … Let them be anathema Maranatha … unless they should repent.” To present the docuмent as if it were limited to three persons is not a benign simplification but a selective misreading that erases the operative clause extending the anathema to followers and to the errors they upheld.
Koch compounds the distortion by leaning on a separate legal point — that Pope Leo IX had died and therefore the legates’ act lacked canonical force — and treating that legal caveat as if it nullified the docuмent’s plain content. Validity and content are distinct: historians can legitimately debate whether the bull had full juridical effect after the pope’s death, but that debate does not change what the parchment actually says. Conflating the two turns a procedural question about authority into a retroactive rewriting of the medieval text.

At least Koch admits freely that, "The 1965 Declaration ushered in an eccesiology of Sister Churches."

And, "Metropolitan Job of Pisidia highlighted the work of the many historians from both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches who have undermined the traditional narrative of the ‘schism’ of 1054."

How does a heretic view his heresy? "Pope Leo XIV's decision to omit the clause during the ecuмenical vespers in Rome in September of last year as a sign of "great hope."

And he freely admits that the hierarchy is 100% onboard, but, "unity between the two Churches, will only come once it is desired by the clergy and laity too."

So they will just change the narrative and pretend, "there never was a schism...."

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #1 on:** **Today** at 01:33:32 PM »

Roncalli did that kind of thing already in Turkey in 1920s or 1930s when he had the Filioque removed from the Catholic embassy building.

They really do live in a delusional fantasy world like Fr. Despósito talked about in his modern errors course.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #2 on:** **Today** at 04:39:54 PM »

More from Modernist Rome's chief ecuмenist lackey Koch - who loves chumming it up with schizos and perverts. He has been a busy boy these last 15 years - but now under Leo, the rotten fruit of his works is ripe for the picking.

https://www.christianunity.va/content/dam/unitacristiani/Collana_Ut_unum_sint/The_Bishop_of_Rome/The%20Bishop%20of%20Rome.pdf

DETAILED FINDINGS

Overview of the text and purpose of this critique
The docuмent evaluated is The Bishop of Rome. Primacy and Synodality in the Ecuмenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint (study docuмent, Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, English edition, pages 1–150 as supplied). The study gathers ecuмenical responses and theological dialogues about the Petrine ministry and proposes practical ways the Bishop of Rome’s ministry might be exercised in the twenty‑first century. The purpose of this critique is to test the study’s proposals and formulations strictly against the pre‑Vatican II doctrinal standard you specified: Pastor aeternus (Vatican I), the Council of Trent, the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX), Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Pius X), Mortalium Animos (Pius XI), and Mystici Corporis Christi (Pius XII), while bringing in patristic and classical theological witnesses (Fathers and scholastics) to show the traditional matrix the study must be measured against.

Method and sources used in the analysis
The method was (1) a close reading of pages 1–150 of the English study text you supplied, extracting the study’s recurring formulations and concrete proposals; (2) comparison of those formulations with the pre‑Vatican II magisterial formulations you named, especially the dogmatic formula of Vatican I that the Roman Pontiff “possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church”; (3) supplementation by classical patristic and scholastic testimony (representative Fathers such as Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Leo I; scholastic synthesis in Aquinas) to show how Scripture, Tradition, and historical practice have been read in the classical tradition; (4) classification of problematic items using classical pre‑Vatican II categories (contrary to defined dogma; theological error contrary to the ordinary and universal magisterium; pastoral imprudence). No post‑Vatican II magisterial authority was used as a normative corrective to the pre‑Vatican II yardstick; patristic and scholastic witnesses were used only to show continuity with the older doctrinal tradition.

Summary of findings and error count by level
Applying the pre‑Vatican II standard, the study contains five principal doctrinal problems that cross the threshold from mere pastoral concern into doctrinal error as that phrase is understood in the classical manuals. Their classification by classical pre‑Vatican II categories is as follows:

Two items amounting to contradiction of defined dogma (i.e., they would, if pressed into normative teaching, deny or relativize a dogma defined by Vatican I).
Two items that constitute theological error contrary to the ordinary and universal magisterium (serious departures from received magisterial teaching though not framed as direct denial of a defined dogma).
One item that is theologically dangerous pastoral practice (pastoral imprudence that, if implemented, would lead to doctrinal compromise). The five items are summarized and then displayed in detail below.

1. Treating primacy as a set of adaptable “forms” to be “recognized” rather than as a binding juridical office
Dicastery formulation excerpt: “to find a way of exercising primacy … open to a new situation” and repeated emphasis on “forms … that could be ‘recognized by all concerned’” (Introduction and Preface).
Pre‑Vatican II standard: Pastor aeternus — “We teach and define that the Roman Pontiff… possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church.”
Patristic and theological context: the Fathers and the canonical practice of appeals (Clement, Ignatius, Sardica, Leo I) show an early, operative role for Rome in unity and dispute settlement; scholastic theology integrates pastoral service with juridical competence.
Classification and note: Contrary to defined dogma if the “forms” language is used to make the Pope’s juridical supremacy optional or replaceable by mere recognition. Vatican I defines a juridical primacy; presenting recognition of a non‑juridical form as an acceptable substitute would relativize a defined dogma and thus fall into the classical category of contradiction of defined doctrine.

2. Proposing “recognition” by other communions as a substitute for doctrinal submission
Dicastery formulation excerpt: repeated orientation toward a primacy that is a “service of love recognized by all concerned” and proposals for practical, relational models to facilitate ecuмenical acceptance (Preface; Introduction; summary proposals).
Pre‑Vatican II standard: medieval magisterial tradition and Unam Sanctam as received in the tradition — classical formulations tie submission to the Roman Pontiff to ecclesial unity and, in some formulations, to salvation.
Patristic and theological context: canonical and conciliar practice ties recognition and juridical submission together historically; the Fathers do not separate recognition from canonical submission in a way that undermines authority.
Classification and note: Theological error contrary to the ordinary and universal magisterium if “recognition” is advanced as a substitute for doctrinal assent. The older manuals treat denial or effective nullification of the necessity of submission as a serious doctrinal error; if obstinately held, such a position would amount to formal dissent.

3. Recasting the ius divinum claim as merely historically mediated or as a providential gift that permits adaptive rewording
Dicastery formulation excerpt: hermeneutical proposals that treat de iure divino and de iure humano categories as historically mediated and invite re‑reception or reinterpretation of Vatican I in light of historical contingency (sections on de iure divino and hermeneutical clarifications).
Pre‑Vatican II standard: Pastor aeternus explicitly states the primacy is instituted ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione seu iure divino; Vatican I’s definition is dogmatic.
Patristic and theological context: classical theology allows explanation of how divine institution is mediated historically, but it does not permit converting a dogmatic claim into mere historical contingency.
Classification and note: Contrary to defined dogma if the hermeneutic is used to deny that the primacy is of divine institution as Vatican I defined it. Nuanced historical explanation is permitted, but any reinterpretation that removes the normative force of ius divinum as defined would be a direct contradiction of a defined dogma.

4. Proposals that effectively subordinate papal jurisdiction to synodal or regional structures (voluntary limitation as structural norm)
Dicastery formulation excerpt: proposals and dialogue reports recommending voluntary limitations on papal exercise, subsidiarity and regionalization, and models where the Pope’s exercise is substantially different in relation to Eastern Churches or is constrained by collegial organs (sections on subsidiarity, voluntary limitation, regional level).
Pre‑Vatican II standard: Pastor aeternus and the medieval decretal tradition affirm the Pope’s immediate and supreme jurisdiction; Trent and the manuals presuppose the availability of papal jurisdiction when required.
Patristic and theological context: historical practice includes prudential restraint by popes, but the juridical competence remained available; scholastic theology distinguishes prudential restraint from structural abrogation.
Classification and note: Theological error contrary to the ordinary and universal magisterium if voluntary limitation is proposed as a permanent structural substitute for jurisdiction. Prudential restraint is permissible; structural subordination of the Pope’s juridical competence to regional bodies or synodal vetoes would conflict with Vatican I’s teaching.

5. Recommending official rewording or re‑reception of Vatican I that would convert juridical categories into primarily pastoral language
Dicastery formulation excerpt: reporting calls from dialogues for “re‑reception,” “re‑interpretation,” “official interpretation,” “updated commentary,” or even “rewording” of Vatican I formulations to make them intelligible in a communio ecclesiology (practical suggestions section).
Pre‑Vatican II standard: Vatican I’s dogmatic definitions are binding; the faithful owe assent to their substance. Pascendi and Mortalium Animos warn against relativizing doctrine for accommodation.
Patristic and theological context: theological development and authoritative clarification are legitimate, but the classical manuals distinguish development from substantive revision.
Classification and note: Pastoral imprudence bordering on doctrinal error if rewording is intended to change the substance of the dogma. An authoritative commentary that clarifies intention and preserves substance is permissible; an official rewording that transforms juridical claims into purely pastoral categories would be doctrinally impermissible and, in classical terms, contrary to defined doctrine if it alters substance.

Conclusion: Ontological shift and doctrinal rupture
On the strict pre‑Vatican II standard applied throughout this dossier, the study’s recurring proposals and hermeneutical moves do not amount merely to prudential reform or pastoral experimentation. Taken together they effect an ontological shift in the Church’s self‑understanding: they relocate the source and normativity of Petrine authority from a juridically constituted, divinely instituted office (as defined by Pastor aeternus) to a historically mediated, primarily pastoral or “recognizable” function. This is not a mere change of emphasis; it is a change in the being (ontos) of the Petrine ministry — from an office of concrete, immediate jurisdiction to a flexible, contingent function whose authority depends on recognition, reception, or synodal accommodation.

Doctrinal and ecclesial consequences
Measured by the classical categories of pre‑Vatican II theology and manuals, that ontological shift amounts to a doctrinal rupture. If the study’s proposals were adopted as normative teaching or practice, they would, in effect, negate the substance of Vatican I: the Council’s claim that the Roman Pontiff “possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church” would be transformed into a non‑juridical, optional, or merely symbolic ministry. Under the older magisterial logic, such a transformation is not a harmless development but a rejection of a defined dogma. Persisting in and implementing such a rejection would place the teaching in the moral and theological category that classical manuals associate with heresy (obstinate denial of a defined truth) and, by severing the juridical bonds that constitute visible communion, would produce the practical effects of schism.

What the study is effectively calling for
Read in its most decisive implications, the study is calling for nothing less than a substantive repudiation of Vatican I’s doctrinal substance: it proposes to replace or neutralize the Council’s juridical categories by recasting primacy as historically contingent, pastorally negotiable, and structurally subordinate to synodal or regional recognition. That program, if carried through as normative ecclesial policy, would not be a mere reform of practice but a doctrinal reversal — a rejection in substance of the dogmatic core of Pastor aeternus.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #3 on:** **Today** at 04:44:51 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos on Today at 01:33:32 PM

Roncalli did that kind of thing already in Turkey in 1920s or 1930s when he had the Filioque removed from the Catholic embassy building.

They really do live in a delusional fantasy world like Fr. Despósito talked about in his modern errors course.

Removing he Filioque is the most minor ( not that it is minor at all) of the offenses and lies that the above article spreads.

Koch under Francis and now Prevost has gone so far as to call for a "re-reading of Vatican I", which is no surprise to me, but when the study came out not to many people gave it much attention.

Leo is implementing what Koch's study suggests, and he is off to a running start!

He grabbed the baton of heresy/schism from Jorge and without missing a beat, he is implementing that plan to reduce the papacy to utter meaninglessness, while synthesizing all the personalities of the previous false pontiffs into one:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/who-is-bobby-pervertost-the-new-'pope'/

The vision becomes a little sharper with "Leo", "An ecuмenical church without borders or rules operating on the Anglican synodal model with the "Pope" as a mere figurehead and the Catholic doctrine/morals reduced to the trash heap of sectarianism/bigotry.

Author Topic: Koch agrees that the Greek Orthodox were never in schism... (Read 432 times)

SkidRowCatholic

Koch agrees that the Greek Orthodox were never in schism...

Kephapaulos

Re: Koch agrees that the Greek Orthodox were never in schism...

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Koch agrees that the Greek Orthodox were never in schism...

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Koch agrees that the Greek Orthodox were never in schism...