Three apostolic sees

[ViaCrucis]

But the canon is about specific bishops, and Rome is not included in these instructions. So, Alexandria administers Egypt. And the other cities mentioned have whatever privileges mentioned. Rome has privileges of its own but this canon is not addressing Roman privileges.

The only privilege afforded to Rome is a prerogative of honor, which Constantinople shared in a secondary sense. Rome no more had authority over the other patriarchates than did Constantinople. The Patriarch of Rome was, frequently, afforded honor and respected; but that did not give Rome unrestrained authority. The Patriarch of Constantinople was also, frequently, afforded honor; but that did not give Constantinople unrestrained authority.

When Cyriacus tried to assert himself as a universal bishop over the whole Church, it was condemned. And condemned most strongly by St. Gregory the Great himself. Gregory does not condemn Cyriacus' attempt at universal episcopacy by saying this unique privelege belonged to the See of Rome--Gregory does not claim that he was the universal bishop and so Cyriacus couldn't be. Instead, St. Gregory argued that the very idea of a universal bishop is contrary to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, contrary to the ancient Canons and customs, the very apostolic faith itself: calling the very idea of a universal bishop "the precursor to Antichrist".

"The provident piety of my lords, lest perchance any scandal might be engendered in the unity of Holy Church by the dissension of priests, has once and again deigned to admonish me to receive kindly the representatives of my brother and fellow priest Cyriacus, and to give them liberty to return soon. And although, most pious lord, all your injunctions are suitable and provident, yet I find that by such an admonition I am reproved as being in your judgment indiscreet. But, even though my mind has been wounded in no slight degree by a proud and profane title, could I possibly be guilty of so great indiscretion as not to know what I owed to the unity of the faith and to ecclesiastical concord, and to refuse to receive the representatives and the synodical letter of my brother on account of bitterness from whatever cause intervening? Far be this from me. Such wisdom had been unwisdom. For what is due from us for conserving unity of faith is one thing; what is due for restraining elation is another. Times therefore were to be distinguished, lest the newness of my aforesaid brother might in any point be disturbed. Whence also I received his representatives with great affection. Whatever charity I owed to them I displayed, and honoured them more than it had been the ancient custom to do, and caused them to celebrate the sacred solemnities of mass with me; since, even as my deacon ought not to serve, for exhibition of the sacred mysteries, him who has either committed the sin of elation or corrects it not himself when committed by others, so it was right that his ministers should attend, in the celebration of mass, on me, who, under the keeping of God, have not fallen into the error of pride.

I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. As to this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offense ought not to be engendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalts himself shall be humbled Luke 14:11; 18:14, I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offense by the appellation of a frivolous name. For I, a sinner, who by the help of God retain humility, need not to be admonished to humility. Now may Almighty God long guard the life of our most serene Lord for the peace of holy Church and the advantage of the Roman republic. For we are sure, that if you live who fear the Lord of heaven, you will allow no proud doings to prevail against the truth." - St. Gregory the Great, Letters, Epistle 33, to Mauricius Augustus

This isn't anti-Catholic Protestant rhetoric from the 18th or 19th centuries, this is St. Gregory, seated on St. Peter's Chair in Rome saying this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But the canon is about specific bishops, and Rome is not included in these instructions. So, Alexandria administers Egypt. And the other cities mentioned have whatever privileges mentioned. Rome has privileges of its own but this canon is not addressing Roman privileges.

The privileges of the Roman see were shaped over time through various early church councils.

1. Council of Nicaea (325 CE):
   • The First Ecumenical Council convened in Nicaea (modern-day Iznik, Turkey).
   • While its primary focus was on doctrinal matters, it also addressed practical issues.
   • The council recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as a symbol of unity and authority within the Church.
2. Council of Constantinople (381 CE):
   • The Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, Turkey).
   • It reaffirmed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and recognized the patriarchal status of the Roman see.
   • The council emphasized the importance of maintaining communion with the Roman Church.
   • Pope Damasus I in Rome appears to have accepted the creed but not the canons, at least not the canon upon the precedence of Constantinople. (Rome indeed accepted the precedence of Constantinople, next to Rome, only during the life of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, created in the 13th century during the Fourth Crusade.) In both East and West, nevertheless, the council came to be regarded as ecumenical. [First Council of Constantinople | Description, History, Doctrine, & Significance]
3. Council of Ephesus (431 CE):
   • The Third Ecumenical Council took place in Ephesus (modern-day Selçuk, Turkey).
   • It addressed the Nestorian heresy and affirmed the divine maternity of the Virgin Mary.
   • The Bishop of Rome, Pope Celestine I, played a crucial role in upholding orthodox doctrine during this council.
4. Council of Chalcedon (451 CE):
   • The Fourth Ecumenical Council convened in Chalcedon (modern-day Kadıköy, Turkey).
   • It dealt with the Christological controversies and affirmed the two natures (divine and human) of Christ.
   • The Bishop of Rome exercised his authority by confirming the council’s decisions.
5. Lateran Councils:
   • The Lateran Councils, held in Rome, further solidified the privileges of the Roman see.
   • The Fourth Lateran Council (1215 CE), in particular, emphasized the supremacy of the Pope and clarified the doctrine of transubstantiation.

These councils collectively contributed to the development of Rome’s privileges, including its role as the centre of unity, final authority, and spiritual leadership within the Christian Church. [Written with help from Microsoft Copilot, it was fairly good and I am sleepy at 04:43 in the morning.]

I do not expect those from the Orthodoxies of the east (and west) to agree in total with the summary above, but it does give readers some perspective on the matter of the Catholic Church's development of jurisdictional authority over time.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The only privilege afforded to Rome is a prerogative of honor

I am not sure that Rome ever saw it that way.

Newadvent has this in its article on the first council of Constantinople.

The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.​

• The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
• The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
• The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
• The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."

 

[prodromos]

I do not expect those from the Orthodoxies of the east (and west) to agree in total with the summary above, but it does give readers some perspective on the matter of the Catholic Church's development of jurisdictional authority over time.

The summary above doesn't provide any reference to actual canons in those Councils. It is heavy on opinion and light on evidence.

 

[dzheremi]

The summary above doesn't provide any reference to actual canons in those Councils. It is heavy on opinion and light on evidence.

And even in the actual opinions, some seem to lack concrete meaning relative to this discussion. What does it mean in the context of a conversation that is supposed to be about Rome's claims to jurisdiction over other sees to say that Nicaea recognized the primacy of the Pope of Rome as "a symbol of unity"? That's puffery if I've ever read it. As I tried to get our friend to discuss when he brought up Rome's "primacy of honor" some posts ago, does this "honor" mean that the Pope of Rome has jurisdiction over other sees outside of his own? The answer (from post #39) was "I don't know. It means something." Okay then, but you'd think such things wouldn't be brought up unless they actually support the very definite ecclesiological claims that we all know Rome makes. Again, I don't think you can get from "they mean something" to "they mean this very specific thing that only Rome has ever believed" unless you already have that in mind as the "something" in question.

Yet when it comes to dealing with canons that we all recognize, there's nothing specific to be said when asked for a direct answer, apparently. Maybe because those canons and the councils that drafted them don't actually affirm Rome's unique ecclesiology.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The privileges of the Roman see were shaped over time through various early church councils.

1. Council of Nicaea (325 CE):
   • The First Ecumenical Council convened in Nicaea (modern-day Iznik, Turkey).
   • While its primary focus was on doctrinal matters, it also addressed practical issues.
   • The council recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as a symbol of unity and authority within the Church.
2. Council of Constantinople (381 CE):
   • The Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, Turkey).
   • It reaffirmed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and recognized the patriarchal status of the Roman see.
   • The council emphasized the importance of maintaining communion with the Roman Church.
   • Pope Damasus I in Rome appears to have accepted the creed but not the canons, at least not the canon upon the precedence of Constantinople. (Rome indeed accepted the precedence of Constantinople, next to Rome, only during the life of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, created in the 13th century during the Fourth Crusade.) In both East and West, nevertheless, the council came to be regarded as ecumenical. [First Council of Constantinople | Description, History, Doctrine, & Significance]
3. Council of Ephesus (431 CE):
   • The Third Ecumenical Council took place in Ephesus (modern-day Selçuk, Turkey).
   • It addressed the Nestorian heresy and affirmed the divine maternity of the Virgin Mary.
   • The Bishop of Rome, Pope Celestine I, played a crucial role in upholding orthodox doctrine during this council.
4. Council of Chalcedon (451 CE):
   • The Fourth Ecumenical Council convened in Chalcedon (modern-day Kadıköy, Turkey).
   • It dealt with the Christological controversies and affirmed the two natures (divine and human) of Christ.
   • The Bishop of Rome exercised his authority by confirming the council’s decisions.
5. Lateran Councils:
   • The Lateran Councils, held in Rome, further solidified the privileges of the Roman see.
   • The Fourth Lateran Council (1215 CE), in particular, emphasized the supremacy of the Pope and clarified the doctrine of transubstantiation.

These councils collectively contributed to the development of Rome’s privileges, including its role as the centre of unity, final authority, and spiritual leadership within the Christian Church. [Written with help from Microsoft Copilot, it was fairly good and I am sleepy at 04:43 in the morning.]

I do not expect those from the Orthodoxies of the east (and west) to agree in total with the summary above, but it does give readers some perspective on the matter of the Catholic Church's development of jurisdictional authority over time.

All of this suggests that when Rome was in agreement with the rest of the Church, it was good. The problems are when Rome revolts against the Church Catholic to assert itself above the rest.

This doesn't appear to be a very good defense of Rome's position, but rather shows it as flimsy at best.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am not sure that Rome ever saw it that way.

Newadvent has this in its article on the first council of Constantinople.

The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.​

• The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
• The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
• The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
• The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."

If that were the case, then that seems merely to be admission that Rome is out of sync with the views, beliefs, practices, and understanding of the Church Catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The first in honour is Rome, and Antioch in Syria as well as Alexandria are next. All three are Petrine sees, Saint Peter the apostle was bishop of Rome and he was also bishop of Antioch at a different time, and Alexandria, how is it Petrine? It was founded by Saint Peter's disciple and helper, Mark, who was bishop there.

The Nicene council includes a canon about the three sees.

Canon 6 Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.​

And here is a map of the five sees of the Pentarchy

Rome, Antioch in Syria, and Jerusalem are mentioned in the scriptures of the New Testament, but Alexandria is not, nor is Byzantium (later known as Constantinople).

This is interesting from a theological perspective.

The OP helps with the map showing the three Petrine sees, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. In 565 AD these sees were in communion. Today matters are more complex. Post #43 quotes from the Catholic encyclopaedia. It gives historical background.

The summary above doesn't provide any reference to actual canons in those Councils. It is heavy on opinion and light on evidence.

It is true that the material that Microsoft copilot gathered isn't a set of quotes from the councils, it is a summary and does not pretend to be otherwise. Opinion? I am not so sure that AIs have opinions, it is software that gathers information from the internet and offers its findings. Are the AI's summaries from post #42 accurate? they may be. My printed summaries for the 21 councils of the Catholic Church - from an appendix of the book The Teaching of Christ - correspond fairly well with what is in the post.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am not sure that Rome ever saw it that way.

Newadvent has this in its article on the first council of Constantinople.

The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.​

• The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
• The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
• The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
• The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit."

If that were the case, then that seems merely to be admission that Rome is out of sync with the views, beliefs, practices, and understanding of the Church Catholic.

If Rome is excluded, then the first council of Constantinople would not be oecumenical. Is that where the Orthodoxies of the east and Lutheranism want to go?

 

[dzheremi]

If Rome is excluded, then the first council of Constantinople would not be oecumenical. Is that where the Orthodoxies of the east and Lutheranism want to go?

This is a false choice. We can tell that by looking at what already happened, where Rome did not accept particular canons of the council, the rest of the churches did, and so that's where we remain until today, with Rome complaining about them ever since, and nobody else caring.

How you spin that into a situation that supports the idea that Rome has jurisdiction over others, rather than drawing the much more obvious conclusion that they do not (because, again, Rome's problems with the canons didn't prevent any of the other sees from accepting them anyway), is beyond me, but that's RC ecclesiology for you: It doesn't work when projected into the past, and it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future, either.

Besides, if Rome being 'excluded' (a weird word to use if what we're really talking about is an inability to get other sees to follow them in objecting to the particular canons that Rome alone didn't like; hmm) is enough to 'un-make' a council's ecumenical status, then why would the same not apply to every council after Nicaea, since after all in this view Rome tanks the ecumenical ambitions of the second council. The Persian Church (Church of the East) objected to Ephesus in 431, so I guess that's out. The vast majority of the Egyptians, Syriacs, Ethiopians, and (eventually) Armenians objected to Chalcedon, so there goes its ecumenical status. I know less about councils after that one, for obvious reasons, but I'm sure you can find dissenters from the decisions of what are reckoned by the Chalcedonians to be the 5th, 6th, 7th (8th, 9th, whatever) ecumenical councils.

If that all sounds super-cool to you as a Chalcedonian, then hey, don't let me stop you! Lord knows I don't have any problem with Chalcedon being relegated to the status of something less-than-ecumenical among the churches that currently regard it as ecumenical, though of course my reasons for that would not be to defend the whining of a Pope first registered at a different council some 70 years beforehand, when it was already decided at that time (431) that this would not be an impediment to the rest of the churches' acceptance of the disputed canons. In fact, I find that frankly pretty weird. It would like if I tried to say we should stop regarding Ephesus as ecumenical, out of concern for the objections of the Nestorians. Those objections were and are wrong, so I don't know what simply doing away with our adherence to Ephesus would do to address the objections that the Nestorians still have and have never stopped having to Orthodox Christology. It's giving up a lot (that isn't ours to give up, of course), and gaining nothing in return.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We can tell that by looking at what already happened, where Rome did not accept particular canons of the council, the rest of the churches did, and so that's where we remain until today, with Rome complaining about them ever since, and nobody else caring.

I agree, it is where's the Catholic Church and the Church catholic has been since 381 AD. History has a way of making things interesting. At the time of the council of Constantinople the east had most people and the Churches there were prosperous and important. Now, in 2023 the Christian population is much bigger as is the world population and the churches are a little more divided than may have been the case in 381 AD. I wonder where it will end?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How you spin that into a situation that supports the idea that Rome has jurisdiction over others

I do not think that way, exactly, I am not too familiar with OO and EO nor with Lutheranism nor Anglicanism, so I don't personally want the Catholic Church to exercise jurisdiction over unwilling folk in the Orthodoxies nor among Protestants.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

but that's RC ecclesiology for you: It doesn't work when projected into the past, and it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future, either.

I laughed (good heartedly) when I read that part of your post, it sounds like the voice of exasperation with a topic and me as one of your interlocutors in the topic. But putting that aside, there is a significant difference of interpretation of the council's intended meaning together with the Holy See's perspectives since 381 AD and our (the interlocutors') assessment of the statements from history. I do not pretend to know what was in the minds of the people at the council in 381 AD and I am not sure what Pope Damasus thought. We have records about those times and we have interpretations about them from historians and also from bishops and popes and patriarchs. We'll not solve the disputes. But it is interesting for me to read what OO and EO and Lutheran and Anglican folk say.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Lord knows I don't have any problem with Chalcedon being relegated to the status of something less-than-ecumenical among the churches that currently regard it as ecumenical

Of course, 451 marks the time when OO stopped accepting new oecumenical councils, had Rome stopped in 381 it would be no less free to do so, right? But Rome did not, and Rome has 21 Oecumenical councils, while EO has 7 and OO 3. What we're discussing is the perspective we each take of who opted out of oecumenism and when. Rome claims to be Oecumenical today, EO parted ways in 1054 but had misgivings about Rome centuries earlier, and OO parted ways in 451; I write this from my perspective realising that OO might see 451 as the year everyone else when astray and parted ways from them - the holders of true orthodoxy - and the EO may see matters playing out with OO leaving the oecumenical fold and then in 1054 Rome doing the same. Lutherans and Anglicans probably have their own quite distinct perspective on this whole thing.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not think that way, exactly, I am not too familiar with OO and EO nor with Lutheranism nor Anglicanism, so I don't personally want the Catholic Church to exercise jurisdiction over unwilling folk in the Orthodoxies nor among Protestants.

It doesn't really matter what you personally want or what I personally want, as it's not the place of laypeople to outpace our respective synods in their dealings with other communions (or since I guess you guys don't have synods, whatever body in the RC world is in charge of ecumenical relations). It matters what our respective churches affirm as being true. Your church affirms something that literally no other church has ever believed in the realm of ecclesiology.

 

[prodromos]

It is true that the material that Microsoft copilot gathered

In future, please make clear the source of your posts so I know not to waste any time on them. If you are going to have an AI do all your heavy lifting then it isn't worth my time responding.
I've seen examples of AI presenting false information and doubling down on it when pressed for details. Plus if someone decides to use AI to respond to your AI generated posts, it'll end up being an AI arguing with itself, which will be a complete waste of everyone's time.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

or since I guess you guys don't have synods, whatever body in the RC world is in charge of ecumenical relations

We do have synods, have had them for 2,000 years, almost. Here is a news item from 2023

The bishop's Synod in Rome is a group of bishops who meet at fixed times to foster closer unity with the Pope and to assist him with their counsel on various matters of the Church1. The current Synod on Synodality is a three-year process of listening and dialogue that began in October 2021 and will conclude in 2024 2.

It doesn't really matter what you personally want or what I personally want, as it's not the place of laypeople to outpace our respective synods in their dealings with other communions (or since I guess you guys don't have synods, whatever body in the RC world is in charge of ecumenical relations). It matters what our respective churches affirm as being true. Your church affirms something that literally no other church has ever believed in the realm of ecclesiology.

Yes, that is true, and it is true because - officially speaking with an historical perspective from the holy see - you guys went into schism in 451, some others did it in 431, and before that Arius and his followers went into heresy, and after 451 Constantinople when into several heresies over time, first Arianism, later iconoclasm, and then there were the errors of Photius, and finally the great schism in 1054. And the Holy See remained true to Christ's word to saint Peter and the other apostles who were in hearing, you are [the rock] Peter and upon this rock [Peter] I will build my church.

But speaking for myself, and as a few popes of recent times have said, faults were present in behaviour for the Papal legate and for the Patriarch, and speaking for myself without knowing what recent popes may think I say that the schism is not healed even now and on CF and elsewhere the old grievances are rehearsed and replayed with varying degrees accuracy. And I think the same may be true of OO posts in CF. It looks like everyone will continue in this way until the hierarchies of the ancient churches and the leaders of the Protestants find a way to love one another sufficiently until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. I wonder if it will take until the last day when the souls and hearts of all people shall be revealed, let us pray that it does not, and that it comes while we are yet upon the earth; Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy on us.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In future, please make clear the source of your posts so I know not to waste any time on them. If you are going to have an AI do all your heavy lifting then it isn't worth my time responding.

I did make it clear. The post explicitly says so. But it was said at the end of the AI material (some additions from me are in that material too, especially the Britanica quote which the AI shrunk, and I returned to its fuller size). But the AI contribution was pertinent, and it does contain significant useful information in its summaries of the councils that matches fairly closely the printed source that I also cited, and since it was four o'clock in the morning (which I mentioned in the post), when I wrote the post, I figured that some leniency may be granted by the readers of the post. God willing, they will. I see from your last sentence that you do not think that leniency ought to be given, but I plead that I woke at a few minutes before four AM and read the responses to my previous posts so thought a reply was worth typing and I used the AI to provide a summary of the councils, I checked it against the summary in my printed book and finding to approximately the same used it and said I had used it. It allowed me to return to bed and comfortable sleep sooner than would have been the case were I to have typed what was I the book's printed pages. I am not a fast typer. And at four AM my mind is not so nimble as it was when I was a young man. Apologies for your wasted time.

 

[prodromos]

and then there were the errors of Photius

What errors were those?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What errors were those?

Are you familiar with how the Catholic Church views "Photianism"?