Why do you reject the pope?

[MoNiCa4316]

The Fathers? lol.... The slanted "cherry picked" idea of what the Fathers say? Nowhere in the consensus of the Fathers point to the RC and never will... The 4 Patriarchates did not follow the one that is Rome... I wonder who is right and who is wrong then.... think !!!

The schism seems to be a very East vs West thing. It was political. There was a struggle with Constantinople vs Rome. The 4 Patriarchates were Eastern.. of course it makes sense that they would all stick together in this..

it was more of a political thing than theological.. there were even Eastern bishops who didn't see a problem with the filioque..

you say we're "cherry picking" but why is no one addressing the points in those quotes I posted..? what about the idea about unity and the one chair of Peter. That seems to be pretty clear. ?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

wow I think this thread is really going no where... I think I'm just going to leave its just turning into another endless argument. I know what I believe, and you know what you believe too. We're all very opinionated it seems

God bless.

 

[Picklenickels]

"who is he?" well.. someone from the early Church and Christ did say, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church". Everything points to the "rock" being Peter. Both the linguistics and the early church fathers.



I think he's just talking about Apostolic Succession here. That a "church" apart from the bishops is not a church. But he's not talking against the Pope.



actually, there is one visible head, the Pope. Each local parish is a representation of the entire Church. A "symbol" of it. It's sort of mystical. The Pope and the local bishop are not in competition with each other.



the quotes I provided say some important points which have not yet been addressed... the quote by St Cyprian doesn't even mention the Pope, just talks about the importance of Apostolic Succession, IMO. In the early Church, many heretics claimed to teach the truth yet they were not supported by the Bishops. So maybe St Cyprian was trying to counter them. Just an idea.



There have been bad things done on BOTH sides.



Well I am here because this is the St Justin Martyr corner, the only place to present both the Orthodox and the Catholic views and COMPARE them.

Both sides? I think not. Lets see your source.

The Orthodox have always wanted to be left alone. If friction occured, it was usually when the RC's started it.

 

[Michael G]

wow I think this thread is really going no where... I think I'm just going to leave its just turning into another endless argument. I know what I believe, and you know what you believe too. We're all very opinionated it seems

God bless.

Where do you expect this thread to go? Seriously? Why do you Catholics come in here and prostelytize and expect us to just listen and say "wow, that is a great idea" and then apostasize and give in to your faith which we obviously view as being both heretical and schismatic?

 

[prodromos]

you say we're "cherry picking" but why is no one addressing the points in those quotes I posted..?

With all due respect Monica, when you supplied those quotes you did not provide links to where they could be read in their greater context. I doubt very much whether even you have made the attempt to read the full context of those quotes. Having said that, you should appreciate that it takes time and effort to put them in context and not all of the texts are available in electronic format which makes the job even harder. I work full time and have various activities to take my children to after school so it is not possible for me to simply jump in and provide a response.

I will, however, make a couple of comments.

The quote from Philip the presbyter from the acts of the Council of Ephesus may sound like strong evidence, but reading through the proceedings of the Council you find that such bold statements by the Papal legates are politely ignored by the Eastern bishops. The Council makes its own judgment regardless of any decision 'handed down' by the Pope. After Cyril's refutation of the errors of Nestorius have been read and after that a translation of Cœlestine's letter is heard, the Bishops of the Council make the following statement:

"This is a just judgment. To Cœlestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Cœlestine the guardian of the faith! To Cœlestine of one mind with the synod! To Cœlestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Cœlestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!"​

The second of your quotes from Cyprian of Carthage is a favorite of Catholic apologists. Unfortunately for you St Cyprian revised his own text as he realised that some were not interpreting his words in the way he meant them to be understood. You need to look for the 2nd revision of his work "The Unity of the Catholic Church". You also need to understand his letters and works in the light of how he himself acted in regards to the Pope. If St Cyprian understood the Papacy as Catholics claim, he certainly didn't act like it.

The quote from Irenaeus simply does not support you claims, quite the opposite. He starts off by saying the heretics are confounded by the apostolic succession of all the other churches and then uses Rome as the local example since:

"it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches"​

I can't find Peter Chrysologus online anywhere so cannot comment on him, and I haven't had time to look into Optatus yet.

If you want a better response to your quote mines then I recommend you do the legwork and provide links to the works they are taken from. I also recommend you read through the larger works yourself and try to get some idea of the historical circumstances in which they were written.

Remember too that Peter's primacy is not at issue in the Orthodox Church. It is Rome's claim that they alone are the successors of Peter, giving them not a primacy, but a supremacy over the other bishops. That is not demonstrated in the early church.

John

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Where do you expect this thread to go? Seriously? Why do you Catholics come in here and prostelytize and expect us to just listen and say "wow, that is a great idea" and then apostasize and give in to your faith which we obviously view as being both heretical and schismatic?

wow didn't realize *discussion* = proselytizing. thanks for assuming the best about people.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Here are all the quotes in context for anyone interested

1. Optatus.
He was writing against the Donatists.
here's the source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2

Here's the whole thing:

II. He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists.
​

So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world.
We must now mention its Adornments,27 and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six 28), amongst which the CATHEDRA is the first; |65 and, since the second Endowment, which is the 'Angelus,' cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on |66 the Cathedra,29 we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where 30 he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you----it follows that you know.31 For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned.32

You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38 lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68
Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40

III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome.
​

To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus 41 Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, |69 to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius,42 who to-day is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' 43 through the intercourse of letters of peace,44 agrees with us in one bond of communion.45
Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra,46you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!

the rest is more about the Donatists than about the Church.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

2. Irenaeus.

source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt
I actually studied him in one of my classes. He addressed the Gnostics. He basically said that we know the Church is right because of apostolic succession. We know the Gnostics are wrong, even though they use the Bible to support their teachings, cause they don't have Apostolic Succession.

Yes, he does use Rome as an example of one of the churches cause he can't talk about every single church. BUT... check out the part in red:

CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE
VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who
may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a
position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these
men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything
like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known
hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the
perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered
them especially to those to whom they were also committing the
Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be
very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving
behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of
government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions
honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should
fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as
this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil
self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion,
assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating
that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by
the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing
out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity
that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its
pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every- where,
inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously
by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the
Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the
episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to
Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place
from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he
had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them,
might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in
his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in
this], for there were many still remaining who had received
instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small
dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church
in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians,
exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the
tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming
the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of
man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people
from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the
prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From
this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may
also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this
Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating
falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the
Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there
succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from
the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was
gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him,
Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in
the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the
episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come
down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the
same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the
apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

3. St. Cyprian.

http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/FathersofChurchCyprian.htm

here's the revision you mentioned. But I think it still makes some important points about Peter!! I put them in red.

The Unity of the Catholic Church [251/256 A.D.]
555-556
[4]"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven'" (Matt 16: 18-19).

[There are two editions of what follows, the second of which tones down the first in view of Cyprian's argument with the papacy. Papal primacy is clear in the first edition written about 251 A.D., but merely implicit in the second effort written about 255 or 256 A.D.]

First Edition: "And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Second Edition: "It is on the one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, when He says, 'As the Father has sent me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: If you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained" (John 20: 21-23) Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6). [5] Let no one mislead the brotherhood with a lie, let no one corrupt the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth. The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure. The Church also is one, however widely she has spread among the multitude through her fruitful increase. . . . The Church is bathed in the light of the Lord , and pours her rays over the whole world; but it is one light that is spread everywhrere , and the unity of her structure is undivided."

He still says that the unity is because of Peter, I think.

 

[Musa80]

Where do you expect this thread to go? Seriously? Why do you Catholics come in here and prostelytize and expect us to just listen and say "wow, that is a great idea" and then apostasize and give in to your faith which we obviously view as being both heretical and schismatic?

Firstly, I don't think anyone was proselytizing in this thread. It does happen to be the debate section so you can't really be surprised to see alternative opinions in here. Second, leaving the Orthodox Church is not the same as being apostate. When you post things like this that have absolutely no useful information or argument, but just more unwarranted jabs at other Christians, can you not see why nobody seems to listen to your opinions?

 

[Mikeb85]

Firstly, I don't think anyone was proselytizing in this thread. It does happen to be the debate section so you can't really be surprised to see alternative opinions in here. Second, leaving the Orthodox Church is not the same as being apostate.

Actually, leaving the Orthodox Church IS considered apostasy. Also, the patron Saint of the parish I attend became a martyr for the faith when he refused to accept the Roman Catholic faith. (St. Peter the Aleut) If it's all the same faith, what did he die for?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

4. Council of Ephesus.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Session III
Extracts from the Acts

Juvenal the bishop of Jerusalem said to Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend bishops, and to Philip the most reverend presbyter; Yesterday while this holy and great synod was in session, when your holiness was present, you demanded after the reading of the letter of the most holy and blessed bishop of Great Rome, Cœlestine, that the minutes made in the Acts with regard to the deposition of Nestorius the heretic should be read. And thereupon the Synod ordered this to be done. Your holiness will be good enough to inform us whether you have read them and understand their power.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: From reading the Acts we have found what things have been done in your holy synod with regard to Nestorius. We have found from the minutes that all things have been decided in accordance with the canons and with ecclesiastical discipline. And now also we seek from your honour, although it may be useless, that what things have been read in your synod, the same should now again be read to us also; so that we may follow the formula (τύπ&#8179 of the most holy pope Cœlestine (who committed this same care to us), and of your holiness also, and may be able to confirm (βεβαιώσα&#953 the judgment.

[Arcadius having seconded Philip's motion, Memnon directed the acts to be read which was done by the primicerius of the notaries.]

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχο&#962 and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιο&#962 of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

[There is no further reference in the speech to the papal prerogatives.]

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See said: Nestorius has brought us great sorrow....And since of his own accord he has made himself an alien and an exile from us, we following the sanctions handed down from the beginning by the holy Apostles, and by the Catholic Church (for they taught what they had received from our Lord Jesus Christ), also following the types (τύποι&#962 of Cœlestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See, who has condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy Synod [we give this as our conclusion]: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all episcopal dignity, and is an alien from the whole Church and from the communion of all its priests.

Projectus, bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: Most clearly from the reading, etc....Moreover I also, by my authority as legate of the holy Apostolic See, define, being with my brethren an executor (ἐκβιβαστὴ&#962 of the aforesaid sentence, that the beforenamed Nestorius is an enemy of the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty of the things of which he was accused, has been removed from the grade of Episcopal honour, and moreover from the communion of all orthodox priests.

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy Cœlestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote cast against Nestorius the heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shown to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Roman Church, said: According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarily confirm with our subscriptions their doctrines.
The Holy Synod said: Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shown to them.
[The three then signed.]

I don't see the council "ignoring" the Papal legates.. rather, it was seen as important the everyone in the council would agree about Nestorius.

 

[Philothei]

Here are all the quotes in context for anyone interested

1. Optatus.
He was writing against the Donatists.
here's the source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2

Here's the whole thing:

II. He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists.
​

So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world.
We must now mention its Adornments,27 and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six 28), amongst which the CATHEDRA is the first; |65 and, since the second Endowment, which is the 'Angelus,' cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on |66 the Cathedra,29 we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where 30 he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you----it follows that you know.31 For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned.32

You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38 lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68
Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40

III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome.
​

To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus 41 Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, |69 to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius,42 who to-day is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' 43 through the intercourse of letters of peace,44 agrees with us in one bond of communion.45
Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra,46you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!

the rest is more about the Donatists than about the Church.

'

Thank you for the quote mines ....

You just proved my point....

 

[Barky]

All these quotes are fine and good, but I just don't see any action taken by Rome or the Other Patriarchs before the schism to confirm these quotes. The Pope wasn't at a few of the councils and just sent delegates, later accepting the councils as ecumenical.... This doesn't sound like a man who is the sole head of church to me, he would need to be at his own councils for them to be ecumenical.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

So those are the quotes in context

there are many more quotes out there, but I don't have time to look up them all. I only looked up the ones from my previous post. (only 4 of them).

To me it all comes down to the Bible... Christ said, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church"..
makes sense to me but I'm not here to argue.
I just wanted to talk about the quotes.

 

[Picklenickels]

Firstly, I don't think anyone was proselytizing in this thread. It does happen to be the debate section so you can't really be surprised to see alternative opinions in here. Second, leaving the Orthodox Church is not the same as being apostate. When you post things like this that have absolutely no useful information or argument, but just more unwarranted jabs at other Christians, can you not see why nobody seems to listen to your opinions?

I disagree. Leaving the Orthodox Faith is the very meaning of the word. Having the truth and deliberately rejecting it, is as bad as it gets.

 

[Philothei]

The schism was theological not political... The papacy is political... cause the Pope was a leader of his own state do not try to piggybag this one on us... The four Patriarchates were together cause no where in the ecclesioology of the Fathers the word supremacy ever came up neither infalability.... You cannot fool all the people all the time whether you use quote mines or not.. BTW.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

'

Thank you for the quote mines ....

You just proved my point....

what?! I gave you the quote in context, I even gave you a link for the source.

All these quotes are fine and good, but I just don't see any action taken by Rome or the Other Patriarchs before the schism to confirm these quotes. The Pope wasn't at a few of the councils and just sent delegates, later accepting the councils as ecumenical.... This doesn't sound like a man who is the sole head of church to me, he would need to be at his own councils for them to be ecumenical.

I don't know enough about church history to comment on this. But I have read that the Rome was involved in what the other churches were doing, like for example sending the letter to the Corinthian church. (mentioned in one of those quotes)

 

[Philothei]

Th

e Pope wasn't at a few of the councils ...

He was only at one... if any... why are we afraid to say it......

Debate is stating your opinion with words and phrases not quote mining th eFathers.. anyone knows how to copy and paste... Even a 10 year old... could. That is not discussion but when we cannot discuss we quote mine....*sigh* it is easier

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The schism was theological not political... The papacy is political... cause the Pope was a leader of his own state do not try to piggybag this one on us... The four Patriarchates were together cause no where in the ecclesioology of the Fathers the word supremacy ever came up neither infalability.... You cannot fool all the people all the time whether you use quote mines or not.. BTW.

Constantinople was political too. There wasn't any separation of church and state. The Schism was a power struggle.