Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[steve_b]

dzeremi’s comment about James presiding at the Council of Jerusalem agrees with what I learned in college (and this was a conservative Catholic college, not Notre Dame or something like that). I’m inclined to give more weight to that than to an arbitrary discussion on an internet forum.

Yes James was the Bp of Jerusalem. No one should disagree with that. However re: the issue at the council, the trouble they were addressing was coming from those followers of James who were the judaisers requiring gentiles to follow the mosaic laws. One could argue, that James being their bishop, could have alone, stopped that on a dime… right? So one could ask, why didn’t he do that? Why call a council?

So who actually settled the argument? It was Peter, and James being bishop of Jerusalem, confirmed Peter’s decision.

as Crysostom wrote,

(emphasis mine)

“He says unto him, Feed My sheep. And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep” [snip] … And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, since we’re not being diplomatic, I see nothing impressive about the sort of so-called “apologetics” you’re engaging in vis-a-vis the Orthodox.

And by the way, gentlemen, since you are both in communion with Rome, may I assume that you actually agree with the underlying truth of my arguments? Namely, that the Pope was established as the head of the Universal Church by Jesus, etc, etc.?

I do hope that all you’re saying is that I’m a lousy apologist when it comes to Orthodoxy…'cause I’m coming up to speed as fast as I can. I’m a quick study with lots of free time on my hands! :yup:

Oh, one other thought…sometimes, in the apologetics forum, I see a new, Catholic forum member go way off track with a particular line of reasoning. It happens. That’s when I will send a Private Message to that individual to provide some information or maybe a link to an article or two that will help clear up any misunderstanding. Both of you know more about Orthodoxy than I do, but were you aware of the PM function of the forum?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Allow me to give a little more of that citation.

“No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. Acts (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”

I think St. John Chrysostom is quite clear on this.

Acts 15 is clear. St. Peter submitted his opinion based on the vision that God gave him to the Apostolic Council for a decision. He did not have the authority to pronounce doctrine “ex cathedra” as Vatican I gave the Popes. The text is clear, St. James as the local Bishop presided over the council and gave the official opinion. The Apostolic letter was not a papal bull, but was written in the name of the Apostles. The Apostolic Council completely disproves the decisions of Vatican I.

Archpriest John W. Morris

John Chrysostom on Peter, Shepherd of the Flock

Taken from: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfillment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock – the sheep and the lambs alike – in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”.

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these”? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes James was the Bp of Jerusalem. No one should disagree with that. However re: the issue at the council, the trouble they were addressing was coming from those followers of James who were the judaisers requiring gentiles to follow the mosaic laws. One could argue, that James being their bishop, could have alone, stopped that on a dime… right? So one could ask, why didn’t he do that? Why call a council?

So who actually settled the argument? It was Peter, and James being bishop of Jerusalem, confirmed Peter’s decision.

as Crysostom wrote,

(emphasis mine)

“He says unto him, Feed My sheep. And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep” [snip] … And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John)

St. John Chrysostom in his exegesis of Acts understands that St. James rendered his judgment according to the authority of God (by quoting the prophets) and according to his own authority.

 

[steve_b]

St. John Chrysostom in his exegesis of Acts understands that St. James rendered his judgment according to the authority of God (by quoting the prophets) and according to his own authority.

Do you have the quote? He had 55 homilies on Acts.

 

[RyanBlack]

Oh, one other thought…sometimes, in the apologetics forum, I see a new, Catholic forum member go way off track with a particular line of reasoning. It happens. That’s when I will send a Private Message to that individual to provide some information or maybe a link to an article or two that will help clear up any misunderstanding. Both of you know more about Orthodoxy than I do, but were you aware of the PM function of the forum?

Going off track in open forum, including putting out inaccurate or incomplete information, and resorting to inflammatory rhetoric towards the Orthodox (who are, after all, our brothers and sisters in Christ), as you sometimes do, warrants a response in open forum, in my opinion.

 

[dzheremi]

That makes at least two of us (three counting dzheremi).

Yes, I too agree with me…

 

[RyanBlack]

And by the way, gentlemen, since you are both in communion with Rome, may I assume that you actually agree with the underlying truth of my arguments? Namely, that the Pope was established as the head of the Universal Church by Jesus, etc, etc.?

I believe that Christ himself is the head of the Church. I believe that St. Peter held a special place or preeminence among the Apostles. Whether it was Christ’s divine mandate that that role be passed on to those who would succeed him at Rome, I do not know. I accept that the ancient Church-both East and West-believed that the bishop of Rome in fact does hold a role of preeminence among the bishops of the Church. I am very skeptical about claims that the ancient universally believed the role of the bishop of Rome extended to universal ordinary jurisdiction and papal infallibility, as understood since Vatican I.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Steve,

I see that Cavaradossi (well, our father St. Cyril) already dealt with your multicolored eisegesis of Luke, and I would not pretend to be able to do better than he has, so I’ll leave that as it is, but as to the preceding paragraphs, some things can be said for the sake of clarity.

Who speaks for all the Orthodox churches? No one.

The Holy Spirit is not “no one”. The synod speaks for the Church, and the Holy Spirit guides the synod (whether it is the synod of a particular church, or all bishops of the churches gathered in council).

Even in the Orthodox way of thinking, the Bp of Constantinople is supposed to be 1st among equals over the whole. But is he? The ROC in size dwarfs all the other Orthodox churches combined. Does the ROC accept the Bp of Constantinople as 1st among equals?

These questions are best asked of Eastern Orthodox (not me), but to the best of knowledge this is the case.

When you say your Bp is senior bishop of all churches, are you saying your Bp is just senior Bp over the Coptic churches?

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I wrote that HH Pope Tawadros II is recognized as the senior bishop in the Church (in addition to being the bishop of Alexandria), and he is recognized as such by his brother bishops. He is not the senior bishop of other churches in the communion (say, the Syriac Orthodox Church or the Armenian Apostolic Church), but he is recognized by their own Patriarchs as fulfilling that role within his own church. Our churches are autocephalous, after all, although there is a certain logic to their relative ‘ranking’, for lack of a better way to put it (you can see this in the commemoration of the Patriarchs during pan-OO celebrations that occur every so often: the first to be commemorated will be the Patriarch of the particular church in which the celebration is occurring, then Alexandria and Antioch, in keeping with the Nicaean canons that grant these two particular sees privileges as befits them).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Going off track in open forum, including putting out inaccurate or incomplete information, and resorting to inflammatory rhetoric towards the Orthodox (who are, after all, our brothers and sisters in Christ), as you sometimes do, warrants a response in open forum, in my opinion.

Off track? Don’t the mods prune threads here…they do where I come from.

Inaccurate or incomplete? Not intentionally.

Ryan, I have been a member of this forum for a long time, and I pride myself on being pretty thorough when it comes to apologetics accuracy. You’ll note, for example, that most of my posts contain the name of the author and a link to the original website where the material was drawn…at least whenever I have that.

I do this partly because I got my nose bloodied in the apologetics forum many years ago when I was NOT well-prepared or sourced. Never again.

So, where have I been inaccurate or incomplete…beyond the fact that not everyone will agree with the Catholic interpretation? That’s rhetorical, you don’t need to waste your time tracking down anything I may have posted…I’m not demanding that you “prove it.” I may have been inaccurate or incomplete out of ignorance, but I would never intentionally misuse the historical facts as I understand them.

Inflammatory rhetoric? Well, um…okay. I do get fired up occasionally, but SOME of that is more about the receiver’s perception rather than my intent. But not all of it. I’m working on that, and I do apologize.

One thing that is kind of weird…I can’t remember the last time that anyone made anything like the kinds of statements about me, personally, like you and Jharek have made. Jharek has apparently blocked me…a possible first in my history. So, how is it that I take a tough apologetics approach to engaging my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ in the apologetics forum, and no one raises an objection in seven years, but I come to this forum, and suddenly, I’m a bad guy to my Eastern brothers and sisters?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe that Christ himself is the head of the Church. I believe that St. Peter held a special place or preeminence among the Apostles. Whether it was Christ’s divine mandate that that role be passed on to those who would succeed him at Rome, I do not know. I accept that the ancient Church-both East and West-believed that the bishop of Rome in fact does hold a role of preeminence among the bishops of the Church. I am very skeptical about claims that the ancient universally believed the role of the bishop of Rome extended to universal ordinary jurisdiction and papal infallibility, as understood since Vatican I.

My mistake. When I researched Ruthenian Catholic and saw that your church is in communion with the pope, I assumed more than I should.

 

[Randy_Carson]

31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

Yes, the distinction between the plural “you” and the singular “you” is just one more example of Jesus setting Peter into a position of supporting the others.

Nicely done.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi Steve,

I see that Cavaradossi (well, our father St. Cyril) already dealt with your multicolored eisegesis of Luke, and I would not pretend to be able to do better than he has, so I’ll leave that as it is, but as to the preceding paragraphs, some things can be said for the sake of clarity.

The Holy Spirit is not “no one”. The synod speaks for the Church, and the Holy Spirit guides the synod (whether it is the synod of a particular church, or all bishops of the churches gathered in council).

These questions are best asked of Eastern Orthodox (not me), but to the best of knowledge this is the case.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I wrote that HH Pope Tawadros II is recognized as the senior bishop in the Church (in addition to being the bishop of Alexandria), and he is recognized as such by his brother bishops. He is not the senior bishop of other churches in the communion (say, the Syriac Orthodox Church or the Armenian Apostolic Church), but he is recognized by their own Patriarchs as fulfilling that role within his own church. Our churches are autocephalous, after all, although there is a certain logic to their relative ‘ranking’, for lack of a better way to put it (you can see this in the commemoration of the Patriarchs during pan-OO celebrations that occur every so often: the first to be commemorated will be the Patriarch of the particular church in which the celebration is occurring, then Alexandria and Antioch, in keeping with the Nicaean canons that grant these two particular sees privileges as befits them).

Eastern Orthodox recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as holding a primacy of honor. That means that he can call pan-Orthodox Councils and preside himself or through his representative. However, he must abide by the decisions of these councils and has no veto power over them. He is not considered infallible and cannot on his own authority make pronouncements on the doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Even within his own patriarchate, he must abide by the decisions of the Holy Synod of Constantinople on all important matters. He also has no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy. That is the position that the Bishop of Rome had before the schism and the position that he would have in the event of reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe that Christ himself is the head of the Church. I believe that St. Peter held a special place or preeminence among the Apostles. Whether it was Christ’s divine mandate that that role be passed on to those who would succeed him at Rome, I do not know. I accept that the ancient Church-both East and West-believed that the bishop of Rome in fact does hold a role of preeminence among the bishops of the Church. I am very skeptical about claims that the ancient universally believed the role of the bishop of Rome extended to universal ordinary jurisdiction and papal infallibility, as understood since Vatican I.

Ryan-

Scripture tells that there is one flock and one shepherd, correct? Jesus is the Good Shepherd and we are his sheep.

But what happens at the end of John’s Gospel? Jesus tells Peter to tend and feed the sheep. Who tends and feeds sheep? A shepherd.

So, just prior to ascending to heaven, Jesus appoints Peter as the vicarious shepherd who is responsible for feeding and watching over Jesus’ flock.

Now, tie this in with what we know about Jesus giving Peter the keys as the Royal Steward (an office that continued in perpetuity even in the Davidic kingdom of ancient Judah), and we see that Peter is not merely “first among equals” but in charge of the household and flock of Jesus until His return.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Ryan-

Scripture tells that there is one flock and one shepherd, correct? Jesus is the Good Shepherd and we are his sheep.

But what happens at the end of John’s Gospel? Jesus tells Peter to tend and feed the sheep. Who tends and feeds sheep? A shepherd.

So, just prior to ascending to heaven, Jesus appoints Peter as the vicarious shepherd who is responsible for feeding and watching over Jesus’ flock.

Now, tie this in with what we know about Jesus giving Peter the keys as the Royal Steward (an office that continued in perpetuity even in the Davidic kingdom of ancient Judah), and we see that Peter is not merely “first among equals” but in charge of the household and flock of Jesus until His return.

Our Lord’s triple questions to St. Peter were forgiveness for his triple denial of Christ and nothing more. It certainly did not appoint Peter to an office which he never exercised. Historically, the Bishop of Rome never exercised universal jurisdiction over the ancient undivided Church, had the power to unilaterally make doctrinal pronouncements, interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, or veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[steve_b]

I believe that Christ himself is the head of the Church.

No one of faith disputes that. And Jesus set up His hierarchy for His Church
R:

I believe that St. Peter held a special place or preeminence among the Apostles.

Hold that thought
R:

Whether it was Christ’s divine mandate that that role be passed on to those who would succeed him at Rome, I do not know.

How can you believe the former and not the latter, given that the latter, is Peter’s see?
R:

I accept that the ancient Church-both East and West-believed that the bishop of Rome in fact does hold a role of preeminence among the bishops of the Church.

Then that answers your previous question. It came from Jesus. Speaking of early Easterners, Irenaeus from Smyrna in the East, 1 man away from an apostle, who was made Bp of Lyon France in the West by the pope, wrote that it is apostolic teaching that the office of government in the Church, was passed down in succession from the apostles. Therefore, Peter’s office likewise went to his successors.

Bk 3 Chapter 3 , v 1- 3
(all emphasis mine) the link gives full context

" …[snip] 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.

Note: Irenaeus names who “these men” are, in v 3 & 4 that follow. ]

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 preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Irenaeus lists “These men” 12 Bp’s of Rome from Peter down to his day].

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 dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, …

[snip for space]

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. **Soter **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…[snip]"
R:

I am very skeptical about claims that the ancient universally believed the role of the bishop of Rome extended to universal ordinary jurisdiction and papal infallibility, as understood since Vatican I.

The claims are not mere claims. The evidence is there to prove the Catholic position

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ryan-

Scripture tells that there is one flock and one shepherd, correct? Jesus is the Good Shepherd and we are his sheep.

But what happens at the end of John’s Gospel? Jesus tells Peter to tend and feed the sheep. Who tends and feeds sheep? A shepherd.

So, just prior to ascending to heaven, Jesus appoints Peter as the vicarious shepherd who is responsible for feeding and watching over Jesus’ flock.

Now, tie this in with what we know about Jesus giving Peter the keys as the Royal Steward (an office that continued in perpetuity even in the Davidic kingdom of ancient Judah), and we see that Peter is not merely “first among equals” but in charge of the household and flock of Jesus until His return.

According to the Venerable Bede, “That which was said to Peter, ‘Feed My sheep,’ was, in truth, said to them all. For the other Apostles were the same that Peter was; but the first place is given to Peter, that the unity of the Church may be commended.” Hom. in Vigil. Petr. et Pauli.

This of course, is exactly what a first among equals is, one who is exactly what the others are (they are all apostles, and the Apostles were therefore the same that Peter was), but takes a presidency among them as the first ranking of them.

The Venerable Bede is supported in his exegesis by St. Augustine, who wrote in his homily 295, “Fitly, after the resurrection, the Lord committed His sheep to Peter himself to be fed. Not that he was the only amongst the disciples who attained the feeding of the Lord’s sheep, but when the Christ speaks to one, unity is recommended, and to Peter first, because Peter is first of the Apostles.”

St. Basil the Great also agrees with both interpreting that all teachers and shepherds inherit Christ’s charge to Peter to feed His sheep, writing in Const. Monast. xxii. 5: “And we are taught this by Christ Himself, when He was appointing Peter as shepherd of the Church after Himself; for He saith, ‘Peter, lovest thou Me more than these? Feed my sheep;’ giving equal authority to all shepherds and teachers thenceforward.”

What fathers link this passage to the Davidic kingship?

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,

I see that Cavaradossi (well, our father St. Cyril) already dealt with your multicolored eisegesis of Luke,

Cavaradossi left me with the impression he was connecting an idea with Chrysostom, not Cyril. So I asked for the specific quote.

As far as my quoting Luke, that wasn’t eisegesis
d:

The Holy Spirit is not “no one”. The synod speaks for the Church, and the Holy Spirit guides the synod (whether it is the synod of a particular church, or all bishops of the churches gathered in council).

You know what I was saying. NO ONE as in no person within Orthodoxy speaks for the whole.
d:

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I wrote that HH Pope Tawadros II is recognized as the senior bishop in the Church (in addition to being the bishop of Alexandria), and he is recognized as such by his brother bishops. He is not the senior bishop of other churches in the communion (say, the Syriac Orthodox Church or the Armenian Apostolic Church), but he is recognized by their own Patriarchs as fulfilling that role within his own church.

Then what does senior Bp mean in Orthodoxy?
d:

Our churches are autocephalous, after all, although there is a certain logic to their relative ‘ranking’, for lack of a better way to put it (you can see this in the commemoration of the Patriarchs during pan-OO celebrations that occur every so often: the first to be commemorated will be the Patriarch of the particular church in which the celebration is occurring, then Alexandria and Antioch, in keeping with the Nicaean canons that grant these two particular sees privileges as befits them).

iow, as I said, no ONE speaks for all of your churches, because you’re not one church… Each Bp speaks for his own particular church but there is no Bp who speaks for all.

 

[RyanBlack]

Off track? Don’t the mods prune threads here…they do where I come from.

Inaccurate or incomplete? Not intentionally.

Ryan, I have been a member of this forum for a long time, and I pride myself on being pretty thorough when it comes to apologetics accuracy. You’ll note, for example, that most of my posts contain the name of the author and a link to the original website where the material was drawn…at least whenever I have that.

I do this partly because I got my nose bloodied in the apologetics forum many years ago when I was NOT well-prepared or sourced. Never again.

So, where have I been inaccurate or incomplete…beyond the fact that not everyone will agree with the Catholic interpretation? That’s rhetorical, you don’t need to waste your time tracking down anything I may have posted…I’m not demanding that you “prove it.” I may have been inaccurate or incomplete out of ignorance, but I would never intentionally misuse the historical facts as I understand them.

Inflammatory rhetoric? Well, um…okay. I do get fired up occasionally, but SOME of that is more about the receiver’s perception rather than my intent. But not all of it. I’m working on that, and I do apologize.

One thing that is kind of weird…I can’t remember the last time that anyone made anything like the kinds of statements about me, personally, like you and Jharek have made. Jharek has apparently blocked me…a possible first in my history. So, how is it that I take a tough apologetics approach to engaging my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ in the apologetics forum, and no one raises an objection in seven years, but I come to this forum, and suddenly, I’m a bad guy to my Eastern brothers and sisters?

I’m not accusing you of being purposefully inaccurate or incomplete. I do not believe that you have intentionally misused historical facts.

As for not intending to be inflammatory, again, I don’t doubt you sincerity about that either. However, I suggest you take a look at some of things you’ve said about the Orthodox and ask yourself how it can reasonably be expected not to be taken as insulting. As to my reaction and that of some of the others here vs. what you’ve encountered in the Apologetics forum I don’t consider your approach to what you’re calling to be apologetics to be helpful, or appropriate, particularly when you start throwing out insults, such as some of the things you’ve said about maybe nobody cares about anything that the Orthodox bishops have to say, or that maybe they’ve not produced anything of theological value, or comparing their output of writings to that of Rome. I care deeply about the union of all believers, and I’m strongly committed to ecumenism, especially among the various apostolic Churches. When I was Orthodox, if I had been engaged by someone who was Catholic in the way you’ve engaged the Orthodox in the last few days, I seriously doubt I’d be Catholic today. I’m rather certain you share my desire for corporate unity among all believers. Please consider changing your hardnosed (I believe you’ve used that term to describe it) approach. It was attempted for centuries, and with very little success (the proof of this assertion lies in the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of Christians who are not Catholic), which is why the hierarchy of the Catholic Church doesn’t use it. What reason do you have to believe that it will work for you, when it has so seldom worked in the past?

 

[steve_b]

Our Lord’s triple questions to St. Peter were forgiveness for his triple denial of Christ and nothing more. It certainly did not appoint Peter to an office which he never exercised. Historically, the Bishop of Rome never exercised universal jurisdiction over the ancient undivided Church, had the power to unilaterally make doctrinal pronouncements, interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, or veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Archpriest John W. Morris

That contradicts the very text .