Who Started the Great Schism?

[ArmyMatt]

The Three are One.
To suggest They are divided, is
1. Flies in the face of the Creed.
2. Puts limits on the Lord.
3. Peter is the teacher. He was choice. His chair allows it and with those keys, Heaven KEPT him keeping it.

1. agreed, that’s not the issue. no one is saying this.
2. agreed, also not the issue. no one is saying this either.
3. if that is the case as you are defining it, Popes would not disagree.

you didn’t answer my question.

 

[prodromos]

You err.
I showed you the legates, who were not there for this demonstration may have nodded but the Pope did not.
The Filioque remained.

You haven't actually shown any such thing. All you've done is say so, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.
The Filioque was brought back when the papacy was under Frankish influence.

What is lacking in His Divinity is that this argument is even existing. That the Spirit proceeding from Him is heresy...?

So you can't, or won't answer. It shouldn't be a difficult question for you. Every time I've asked this question of Catholics they always either pretend they didn't see the question or dodge and deflect as you have done. It says a lot about your position.

And I repeat again, the Pope is shepherd not only of the whole, but his own region.
The East had the op to add the filioque [in their regions] and even agreed two times it was correct, but backed out.

You also haven't answered my earlier question about which Ecumenical Council stated that the Pope was the teacher of the whole world. If you can't back up any of your claims then it would seem you are only here to troll

 

[prodromos]

The Three are One.
To suggest They are divided, is
1. Flies in the face of the Creed.
2. Puts limits on the Lord.
3. Peter is the teacher. He was choice. His chair allows it and with those keys, Heaven KEPT him keeping it.

Another dodge.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Another dodge.

I am speaking plain.

 

[WarriorAngel]

You haven't actually shown any such thing. All you've done is say so, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.
The Filioque was brought back when the papacy was under Frankish influence.

So you can't, or won't answer. It shouldn't be a difficult question for you. Every time I've asked this question of Catholics they always either pretend they didn't see the question or dodge and deflect as you have done. It says a lot about your position.

You also haven't answered my earlier question about which Ecumenical Council stated that the Pope was the teacher of the whole world. If you can't back up any of your claims then it would seem you are only here to troll

Since I was knee high we prayed it.

The East made a claim in 1848 regarding that council being ecumenical. It's not on the list. I showed you sites.

I suppose Jesus needed a council?

 

[prodromos]

I am speaking plain.

No, you are avoiding answering the questions you were asked.

 

[WarriorAngel]

IF the POPE allowed it under the Franks, the Nocks, the Lunes, the Moons, the toots or tats... the POPE allowed it and was given the keys to do so.

Jesus did NOT say, Peter those keys are only contingent upon a council and The Father In Heaven and Myself need a council too.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Councils are called because of heresies so they figure it out and then get the 'Okie Dokie' from the Pope.
Popes do not need a council to teach. They just do.

Peter feed MY sheep. Peter feed My lambs, Peter feed My sheep.
BE their teacher.

 

[prodromos]

Since I was knee high we prayed it.

You are not centuries old

The East made a claim in 1848 regarding that council being ecumenical. It's not on the list. I showed you sites.

You need to look at the lists Rome had prior to the Investiture Conflict. Your modern lists have been falsified since then.

I suppose Jesus needed a council?

The Church has never interpreted Jesus' words the way Catholics do today.

 

[WarriorAngel]

You are not centuries old

You need to look at the lists Rome had prior to the Investiture Conflict. Your modern lists have been falsified since then.

The Church has never interpreted Jesus' words the way Catholics do today.

St Chrysostom was ancient and he called the chair of Peter the teacher of all.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Councils are called because of heresies so they figure it out and then get the 'Okie Dokie' from the Pope.
Popes do not need a council to teach. They just do.

if this is true, why even have a council if everyone knows to just go to the Pope? why didn’t everyone just go to the Pope right away without a council since he alone can rubber stamp or override one? why wasn’t this done with Honorius or Vigilius?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I already explained all of that regarding Vigilius and Honorius.
Or did you miss it?

And indeed - the East did go to the Roman Pope. See St Clement 1.
I want to add in something... the others grumbled that St John would stay til the Lord came for him [ie, not be a martyr] and it's a sign, because though St John lived, the East knew the Roman Pope was the teacher even above an Apostle.


*Peter and His Titles
St Chrysostom. Peter [was and had been] acknowledged as a higher position and teacher of all.





Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/st-john-crysostom-on-the-apostolic-see/

 

[ArmyMatt]

I already explained all of that regarding Vigilius and Honorius.
Or did you miss it?

And indeed - the East did go to the Roman Pope. See St Clement 1.
I want to add in something... the others grumbled that St John would stay til the Lord came for him [ie, not be a martyr] and it's a sign, because though St John lived, the East knew the Roman Pope was the teacher even above an Apostle.


*Peter and His Titles
St Chrysostom. Peter [was and had been] acknowledged as a higher position and teacher of all.





Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/st-john-crysostom-on-the-apostolic-see/

no, you didn’t. you didn’t actually address the Ecumenical synods that condemned Honorius. you just asserted stuff and repeated yourself.

and, unsurprisingly, you didn’t answer the main reason for my post.

and referencing a Catholic blog which ignores a lot of history is foolish.

 

[prodromos]

St Chrysostom was ancient and he called the chair of Peter the teacher of all.

St John Chrysostom said no such thing. You are putting your words in his mouth.

 

[prodromos]

Councils are called because of heresies so they figure it out and then get the 'Okie Dokie' from the Pope.

No, they inform him of their decisions, as they do for all bishops who were absent from the councils, so they can add their agreement.

Popes do not need a council to teach. They just do.

Bishops don't need a council to teach. They just do.

Peter feed MY sheep. Peter feed My lambs, Peter feed My sheep.
BE their teacher.

Don't forget, " Get behind me, Satan"

 

[prodromos]

I already explained all of that regarding Vigilius and Honorius.
Or did you miss it?

And indeed - the East did go to the Roman Pope. See St Clement 1.
I want to add in something... the others grumbled that St John would stay til the Lord came for him [ie, not be a martyr] and it's a sign, because though St John lived, the East knew the Roman Pope was the teacher even above an Apostle.

Completely false. Corinth was a Roman colony in Greece. The Church there had been established by Paul who spent his last years communicating from Rome. Clement was a close companion of Paul's and was well known to the Corinthian Church. They were not in communication with the Apostle John as he was over in Ephesus or perhaps by then was exiled to Patmos. The circumstances in no way suggest they considered the Bishop of Rome to be above the Apostle John.

*Peter and His Titles
St Chrysostom. Peter [was and had been] acknowledged as a higher position and teacher of all.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/st-john-crysostom-on-the-apostolic-see/

This is the primary flaw in all Catholic apologetics, that of conflating St Peter with the papacy. If St John Chrysostom says something special about St Peter then they assume he means the same for the bishop of Rome. However when St John Chrysostom says something special about one of the other apostles, it is of no importance.
For example, St John Chrysostom states that the Apostle John is the holder of the keys. Catholic apologists ignore that.

The very fact that Chrysostom received his ordination from bishops who were not in communion with Rome, and he wrote nothing at the time which suggested he felt communion with Rome was necessary, demonstrates that whatever he wrote about St Peter, referred to St Peter alone. His writings nowhere show he believe that those things somehow transferred and became true of the Bishop of Rome

 

[prodromos]

Just in addition to the above, the Churches in Corinth and Thessalonki were originally under Rome's jurisdiction because of their connection with the Apostle Paul. It had nothing to do with Peter.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Completely false. Corinth was a Roman colony in Greece. The Church there had been established by Paul who spent his last years communicating from Rome. Clement was a close companion of Paul's and was well known to the Corinthian Church. They were not in communication with the Apostle John as he was over in Ephesus or perhaps by then was exiled to Patmos. The circumstances in no way suggest they considered the Bishop of Rome to be above the Apostle John.

This is the primary flaw in all Catholic apologetics, that of conflating St Peter with the papacy. If St John Chrysostom says something special about St Peter then they assume he means the same for the bishop of Rome. However when St John Chrysostom says something special about one of the other apostles, it is of no importance.
For example, St John Chrysostom states that the Apostle John is the holder of the keys. Catholic apologists ignore that.

The very fact that Chrysostom received his ordination from bishops who were not in communion with Rome, and he wrote nothing at the time which suggested he felt communion with Rome was necessary, demonstrates that whatever he wrote about St Peter, referred to St Peter alone. His writings nowhere show he believe that those things somehow transferred and became true of the Bishop of Rome

If the Pope was unimportant, then why not go to St John himself, yet alive?

And why not a local Bishop?

Why not another equal See or Chair?
And why not corresponding questions with other Chairs input?
Why not corresponding questions to St John and Clement l?

And lastly, why not ask for a council??
[Which was my point]

 

[prodromos]

If the Pope was unimportant, then why not go to St John himself, yet alive?

And why not a local Bishop?

Why not another equal See or Chair?
And why not corresponding questions with other Chairs input?
Why not corresponding questions to St John and Clement l?

And lastly, why not ask for a council??
[Which was my point]

All this has been answered previously, so it is obvious you are simply ignoring the responses.
They had a strong kinship to Rome because

• They were culturally Roman
• Rome was where Paul had been writing from before his martyrdom. They already had established lines of communication with the Church in Rome.
• They had a strong kinship and respect for Clement, who had been a close companion of Paul's.

There is nothing which suggests their going to Rome for advice had anything to do with Peter having been there. That is something that has been made up by Catholic apologists.

With regards to your last question, no one thought to call a council until after the persecution had ended, and then it was Emperor Constantine who called it and provided the means for it to occur.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the Pope was unimportant, then why not go to St John himself, yet alive?

no one is saying he is unimportant.

And why not a local Bishop?

not sure what you are talking about here, aside to say often times local bishops were gone to and not Rome.

Why not another equal See or Chair?
And why not corresponding questions with other Chairs input?
Why not corresponding questions to St John and Clement l?

again, not sure specifically what this has to do with anything, because often people did go to other bishops even ignoring what Rome wanted.

And lastly, why not ask for a council??
[Which was my point]

with what specific issue because oftentimes they did.