Eastern Orthodoxy - question about infallibilityDo the Do the

[joe370]

Again, insisting on something is true doesn’t mean it is. You keep placing the qualification of truth on people, either by some perceived authority on a person (ie. infallibility, magisterial), or by a consensus such as a democracy. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. Think about mathematics or the laws of physics. Could anyone alter it? Can someone who is infallible in math make 2+2 into 5000?

OK. My sister would say that we are wrong about Eucharist, insisting that her church position is the truth and then say: The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. You and I would insist that she is wrong, but she has truth on her side, so she says. Quite the conundrum when no one has the authority from God to settle the matter, just as Jesus’ church did at those early councils, regarding things like the Trinity. I’m just trying to understand.

Why does Jesus need to give someone the authority to teach the truth when He already taught the truth? Authority has nothing to do with truth.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Caretakers sounds fine. Umpires? Why do we need umpires? They can be wrong. The truth is not relative, it is not subjective, so why do we need someone to have authority to pronounce it. Like I said, think of math. 1+1 will always be 2 and no one anywhere can say anything else and be truthful.

Right, I get what you are saying, but an office that is divinely cared for by the Holy Spirit makes for umpires that are protected from making mistakes. Otherwise just look at Protestantism for an excellent case study of what happens when you ignore the historical deposit of faith and magesterial authority. Of course this is because each Protestant denomination and even each pastor, many times, officially or unofficially claims themselves and their own personal interpretation of the Bible as their own authority.

As Orthodox, I understand your worldview and experience is different because you hold to the truths of the deposit of faith and the first 7 councils.

You said the Catholic Church regards you as an apostate excommunicated schizmatic. I think that may be a bit harsh especially since the excommunication was lifted in the 1960’s and things have only improved since.

 

[joe370]

Right, I get what you are saying, but an office that is divinely cared for by the Holy Spirit makes for umpires that are protected from making mistakes. Otherwise just look at Protestantism for an excellent case study of what happens when you ignore the historical deposit of faith and magesterial authority. Of course this is because each Protestant denomination and even each pastor, many times, officially or unofficially claims themselves and their own personal interpretation of the Bible as their own authority.

As Orthodox, I understand your worldview and experience is different because you hold to the truths of the deposit of faith and the first 7 councils.

You said the Catholic Church regards you as an apostate excommunicated schizmatic. I think that may be a bit harsh especially since the excommunication was lifted in the 1960’s and things have only improved since.

JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I

DECEMBER 7, 1965

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right, I get what you are saying, but an office that is divinely cared for by the Holy Spirit makes for umpires that are protected from making mistakes. Otherwise just look at Protestantism for an excellent case study of what happens when you ignore the historical deposit of faith and magesterial authority. Of course this is because each Protestant denomination and even each pastor, many times, officially or unofficially claims themselves and their own personal interpretation of the Bible as their own authority.

Did the Holy Spirit come upon Peter alone during Pentecost? Was there any teaching that Peter received “more Holy Spirit” than anyone else? Why can’t other people who are also filled with the Holy Spirit discern the truth?

Is magesterial authority historical? If so, can you point me where in the First Millennium this is taught and used? Which early Church Father attested to the existence of Magisterial Authority?

Does Protestant Pastors stand the test of Tradition? You seem to claim that without authority we all are ignorant of the truth. That is not so. The truth is the truth even when no one believes it. See, the problem with authority is now you have to prove one’s authority. Why is the Pope now more authoritative than the Protestant Pastor? Because the Pope says he is? Paradox, which results in it being illogical.

As Orthodox, I understand your worldview and experience is different because you hold to the truths of the deposit of faith and the first 7 councils.

There is no Deposit of Faith. There is a once and for all revelation given by Christ. The Ecumenical Councils do not teach anything new that is not already been given by Christ to his Apostles. The Ecumenical Councils only affirm these revelations, it does not present anything new that the Orthodox Fathers did not already believe. The expression of the faith may be new, it may be different, but the essence of the faith, what it is and what it teaches, is exactly the same as what the Apostles themselves were taught and believed.

You said the Catholic Church regards you as an apostate excommunicated schizmatic. I think that may be a bit harsh especially since the excommunication was lifted in the 1960’s and things have only improved since.

The excommunication on the Ecumenical Patriarch was lifted. Read canon law. Anyone who today schisms or apostates is excommunicated.

 

[joe370]

Is magesterial authority historical? If so, can you point me where in the First Millennium this is taught and used? Which early Church Father attested to the existence of Magisterial Authority?

Father John Meyendorff was a 20th century theologian of the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as a writer and teacher:

"A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saint, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter… There exists, however, another succession, equally recognized by Byzantine theologians, but only on the level of the analogy existing between the apostolic college and the episcopal college, this second succession being determined by the need for ecclesiastical order. Its limits are determined by the Councils, and - in the Byzantine practice – by the “very pious emperors.” (The Primacy of Peter, p. 89)

 

[ConstantineTG]

OK. My sister would say that we are wrong about Eucharist, insisting that her church position is the truth and then say: The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. You and I would insist that she is wrong, but she has truth on her side, so she says. Quite the conundrum when no one has the authority from God to settle the matter, just as Jesus’ church did at those early councils, regarding things like the Trinity. I’m just trying to understand.

But your argument here would fail if the one who is in authority is himself wrong. The problem with this premise is that we would assume one in authority has lost his own will to be able to do right and wrong, or just be plain ignorant. Again let us go back to math, how do you think mathematicians figure out the truths of equations? I have a friend who solves math problems nobody has ever solved. Do you think he is an infallible mathematician? There is no conundrum there. You are also believing that issues are resolved right away, that they present a problem and someone in authority can make a decision right there and then. That is not how it happened. Read the history of the Ecumenical Councils. They never decided at the end of a Council. In fact often the issue is unresolved by the start of the next council. They dealt with Arianism in the First Ecumenical Council, and by the Second they were still dealing with Arianism. Where’s the authority there? If such an authority existed in the Early Church, why didn’t the Pope say once and for all that Arianism is heresy, case closed? In fact not a decade after the First Council, Arius was going to be reinstated into the Church! But events prevented that from coming to completion.

To prevent or at least curtail doctrinal division when it rears its ugly head, just as Jesus’ church did during those early councils. They certainly spoke authoritatively when they were stamping out heresies and settling doctrinal differences at those 7 ecumenical councils - right? Did Jesus’ church somewhere along the line lose that authority? If Jesus did not give anyone authority then by whose authority did saint Paul say - “have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority…”? Why submit to their authority, if authority has nothing to do with truth?

No they didn’t. As I said above, nothing was authoritatively spoken that was just accepted without question right there and then. It was never that simple. Read the canons of the councils, you will see that later councils both Ecumenical and not will show that issues from the previous council were far from resolved by the next council. Often it was a later council that would still have to affirm a previous council before that council becomes regarded as Ecumenical.

Because that authority that he speaks of has nothing to do about pronouncing the truth. Tell me, why did Paul and Barnabas end up in Jerusalem in Acts 15? Weren’t they they authority in Antioch? Wasn’t Paul infallible as an Apostle? Where is his authority? If the people in Antioch did not submit to Paul’s authority, why should we even be reading his Epistles?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Did the Holy Spirit come upon Peter alone during Pentecost? Was there any teaching that Peter received “more Holy Spirit” than anyone else? Why can’t other people who are also filled with the Holy Spirit discern the truth?

Is magesterial authority historical? If so, can you point me where in the First Millennium this is taught and used? Which early Church Father attested to the existence of Magisterial Authority?

Does Protestant Pastors stand the test of Tradition? You seem to claim that without authority we all are ignorant of the truth. That is not so. The truth is the truth even when no one believes it. See, the problem with authority is now you have to prove one’s authority. Why is the Pope now more authoritative than the Protestant Pastor? Because the Pope says he is? Paradox, which results in it being illogical.

No the Pope has authority because of his office not because of who he is. the Pope holds the office of Peter, who is clearly first among the Apostles in scripture, and history. The Holy Spirit protects the office.

There is no Deposit of Faith. There is a once and for all revelation given by Christ. The Ecumenical Councils do not teach anything new that is not already been given by Christ to his Apostles. The Ecumenical Councils only affirm these revelations, it does not present anything new that the Orthodox Fathers did not already believe. The expression of the faith may be new, it may be different, but the essence of the faith, what it is and what it teaches, is exactly the same as what the Apostles themselves were taught and believed.

The Deposit of Faith is the Truth that you keep referring to. It is the written and oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles. One Truth for all time. Not relative, but absolute. One Truth that from the earliest times was being distorted and abused by heretics. One Truth that needs protecting by the Church’s Bishops (Magesterium). Who organizes the Bishops, who calls the counsels, who definitely decides what the original truth was when it is questioned, when no consensus can be made. That is the role of the Bishop of Rome. As I am sure you are aware, the Pope does not just declare things too often, I think maybe twice ever regarding Marian doctrines, but his primary duties have been to preach and proclaim the gospel and call when necessary ecumenical counsels.

The excommunication on the Ecumenical Patriarch was lifted. Read canon law. Anyone who today schisms or apostates is excommunicated.

Well I suppose if you want to be excommunicated so badly than by your own doing you are excommunicated, but as the document lifting the excommunication states:

One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople."

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10733927]But your argument here would fail if the one who is in authority is himself wrong.

No one has the authority to tell that person that he/she is wrong - right?

The problem with this premise is that we would assume one in authority has lost his own will to be able to do right and wrong, or just be plain ignorant. Again let us go back to math, how do you think mathematicians figure out the truths of equations? I have a friend who solves math problems nobody has ever solved. Do you think he is an infallible mathematician?

No…

There is no conundrum there. You are also believing that issues are resolved right away, that they present a problem and someone in authority can make a decision right there and then.

That’s just it. If no one possesses the God-given authority, then no one should impose it on others - right? So, those in Acts 15 did not speak authoritatively?

That is not how it happened. Read the history of the Ecumenical Councils. They never decided at the end of a Council. In fact often the issue is unresolved by the start of the next council. They dealt with Arianism in the First Ecumenical Council, and by the Second they were still dealing with Arianism. Where’s the authority there? If such an authority existed in the Early Church, why didn’t the Pope say once and for all that Arianism is heresy, case closed? In fact not a decade after the First Council, Arius was going to be reinstated into the Church! But events prevented that from coming to completion.

OK. But Jesus’ church, in terms of leadership, eventually wielded their authority i.e. they had the God-given authority to settle new theological controversies.

No they didn’t. As I said above, nothing was authoritatively spoken that was just accepted without question right there and then. It was never that simple.

I totally agree.

Read the canons of the councils, you will see that later councils both Ecumenical and not will show that issues from the previous council were far from resolved by the next council.

But eventually authoritatively resolved.

Often it was a later council that would still have to affirm a previous council before that council becomes regarded as Ecumenical.

Affirm with authority…Or, did they have no authority to affirm something? Looks like we are about to reach an impasse brother. No biggie…

Because that authority that he speaks of has nothing to do about pronouncing the truth.

Tell me, why did Paul and Barnabas end up in Jerusalem in Acts 15? Weren’t they they authority in Antioch?

Exactly…The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 spoke with God-given authority.

Wasn’t Paul infallible as an Apostle? Where is his authority? If the people in Antioch did not submit to Paul’s authority, why should we even be reading his Epistles?

He was fallible who wrote infallibly. Good point. Paul understood the importance of councils, when it comes to authoritatively speaking on matters of truth. However, he certainly wrote infallibly and authoritatively about doctrinal truth - right? When Paul said - Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority - that comment had nothing to do with the preservation of truth in Jesus’ church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

No the Pope has authority because of his office not because of who he is. the Pope holds the office of Peter, who is clearly first among the Apostles in scripture, and history. The Holy Spirit protects the office.

Again you are making it as if someone assumes the office and is suddenly stripped of their own will to do right and wrong. We come into communion with God, not become possessed by Him.

The Deposit of Faith is the Truth that you keep referring to. It is the written and oral teachings of Christ and the Apostles. One Truth for all time. Not relative, but absolute. One Truth that from the earliest times was being distorted and abused by heretics. One Truth that needs protecting by the Church’s Bishops (Magesterium). Who organizes the Bishops, who calls the counsels, who definitely decides what the original truth was when it is questioned, when no consensus can be made. That is the role of the Bishop of Rome. As I am sure you are aware, the Pope does not just declare things too often, I think maybe twice ever regarding Marian doctrines, but his primary duties have been to preach and proclaim the gospel and call when necessary ecumenical counsels.

No, it is different. The Orthodox do not agree on the Roman Catholic concept of “Deposit of Faith.” We believe in the once and for all revelation given by Christ, there is no “Deposit of Faith” which can grow as if a seed planted which enables people of a future generation to know things that early Christians never knew about. Here is the honest truth to that, that is just a poor excuse to make up doctrine. If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, how can we know something about Him today that Christians in the First Century did not? Are we smarter?

Well I suppose if you want to be excommunicated so badly than by your own doing you are excommunicated, but as the document lifting the excommunication states:

One cannot pretend that these events were not what they were during this very troubled period of history. Today, however, they have been judged more fairly and serenely. Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople."

What does excommunication mean? It means I am excluded from communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Am I in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, being Orthodox?

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG;10733958]Again you are making it as if someone assumes the office and is suddenly stripped of their own will to do right and wrong.

He is not suggesting such a thing…

No, it is different. The Orthodox do not agree on the Roman Catholic concept of “Deposit of Faith.” We believe in the once and for all revelation given by Christ, there is no “Deposit of Faith” which can grow as if a seed planted which enables people of a future generation to know things that early Christians never knew about.

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed over time - right? Do you have proof that the 1st century Christian leaders defined the Trinitarian dogma in the same way the 4th century leaders did? If not then the doctrine evolved and eventually defined due to the fact that people were questioning the Godhead.

Here is the honest truth to that, that is just a poor excuse to make up doctrine. If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, how can we know something about Him today that Christians in the First Century did not? Are we smarter?

It has nothing to do with intellect…Surely you believe that the Holy Spirit continues to Guide Jesus’ church until the end of time, just as the Holy Spirit did for the first 400 years of Christianity?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Again you are making it as if someone assumes the office and is suddenly stripped of their own will to do right and wrong. We come into communion with God, not become possessed by Him.

What I think you are mistaken on is that you are believing the Pope is Impeccable, not infallible. The Pope is his own man, makes his own decisions and regularly sins. Pope Benedict was reported to go to weekly confession. The difference is that when called upon to definitely declare what the Apostles taught regarding faith and morals then the Holy Spirit protects that process, similarly to how the Holy Spirit protected the early counsels in defining the New Testament Canon.

No, it is different. The Orthodox do not agree on the Roman Catholic concept of “Deposit of Faith.” We believe in the once and for all revelation given by Christ, there is no “Deposit of Faith” which can grow as if a seed planted which enables people of a future generation to know things that early Christians never knew about. Here is the honest truth to that, that is just a poor excuse to make up doctrine. If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, how can we know something about Him today that Christians in the First Century did not? Are we smarter?

If you truly believe this, then how do you explain the Trinity and the constant debate through the first 7 counsels that you accept regarding the divinity of Christ/Holy Spirit and how that all relates ultimately coming together in the Trinity. The Truth was given to us by Christ and the Apostles. There is no new revelation only clarification and study to better understand the faith that was given to us. You, as Orthodox must accept this as your liturgical service and teaching has developed past the first century as well.

What does excommunication mean? It means I am excluded from communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Am I in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, being Orthodox?

I don’t believe this is true. Although it should not be the norm, Catholics are allowed under certain situations to partake in the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church. We certainly believe you have valid sacraments, including Eucharist and Holy Orders

 

[joe370]

Jon S

We certainly believe you have valid sacraments…

:yup:

 

[ConstantineTG]

He is not suggesting such a thing…

Explain then how the office is protected? I was a Catholic of 33 years, I know the teachings. The Pope cannot teach heresy. How can he not unless he has lost his human will?

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed over time - right? Do you have proof that the 1st century Christian leaders defined the Trinitarian dogma in the same way the 4th century leaders did? If not then the doctrine evolved and eventually defined due to the fact that people were questioning the Godhead.

Read the canons of the councils. The definition of “Trinity” came about later, but clearly all orthodox Christians from the beginning believed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were divine with the Father. The reason the councils accepted the teaching of the Trinity was because it was proven that the faith of the Fathers before them was Trinitarian, that is they believe in a Trinuine Godhead.

The doctrine never evolved. Doctrine never evolves. The definition of doctrine can evolve. True enough they never used words like Trinity and Hypostasis and Ousia. But that did not evolve the doctrine, it merely defined it. What these words represent is not a change in the belief by the Apostles. If you read the Gospel of St. John, you will see that Jesus is clearly called God, that He is God the Word, that Jesus calls himself the Divine Name, “I AM”, that He states He and the Father are one. Does Hypostasis and Ousia change that? No.

It has nothing to do with intellect…Surely you believe that the Holy Spirit continues to Guide Jesus’ church until the end of time, just as the Holy Spirit did for the first 400 years of Christianity?

Of course. But the truth again has nothing to do with intellect.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 11:25[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[joe370]

Explain then how the office is protected? I was a Catholic of 33 years, I know the teachings. The Pope cannot teach heresy. How can he not unless he has lost his human will?

The office is protected by God. Like Jon S siad: “What I think you are mistaken on is that you are believing the Pope is Impeccable, not infallible. The Pope is his own man, makes his own decisions and regularly sins. Pope Benedict was reported to go to weekly confession. The difference is that when called upon to definitely declare what the Apostles taught regarding faith and morals then the Holy Spirit protects that process, similarly to how the Holy Spirit protected the early counsels in defining the New Testament Canon.”

Read the canons of the councils. The definition of “Trinity” came about later, but clearly all orthodox Christians from the beginning believed that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were divine with the Father.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Explain then how the office is protected? I was a Catholic of 33 years, I know the teachings. The Pope cannot teach heresy. How can he not unless he has lost his human will?

The Office is Protected because God chooses it to be protected. Because he was well aware of wolves among the sheep, because he was well aware of men choosing to place their own authority above God’s. God Chooses to protect the office because he said he would (Matt 16:18) Jesus tells us that the gates of hell WILL NOT prevail against his church. What else is that declaration other than a declaration of protection by his delegated authority.

If you truly believe what you are saying, then how can you possibly be a part of the Orthodox Church? How do you know the patriarchs are giving correct teaching? What do the Patriarchs do when they disagree (Please don’t pretend they never disagree).

 

[Jon_S_1]

Explain then how the office is protected? I was a Catholic of 33 years, I know the teachings. The Pope cannot teach heresy. How can he not unless he has lost his human will?

Further, this protection is often exercised in the prevention of false teaching rather than the declaration of definitive teaching. Think about it, there were some evil Popes, yet no doctrines were defined during those times. Why? because those Popes were sinful and selfish and cared about worldly things not spiritual things, and of course because the Holy Spirit protected the church. If you believe that the Holy Spirit can work through men to inspire the Word of God in the Scriptures, and you believe the Holy Spirit guided the first 7 councils, then is it such stretch to believe that the Holy Spirit can protect the Bishops and the office of Bishop of Rome especially??

 

[joe370]

ConstantineTG

I believe that it is better to have one point of success and failure (Petrine office + council); you believe a network of self-balancing and self-correcting Churches, in sacramental communion is the better way to go i.e. that system is the better way to go in terms of preserving and transmitting truth. That’s cool…Have a good night brother…

 

[Anthony_V]

Explain then how the office is protected? I was a Catholic of 33 years, I know the teachings. The Pope cannot teach heresy. How can he not unless he has lost his human will?

He acts in the Office of Peter, as part of the Church. Consider it like the Catholic understanding of the pastor standing in Persona Christi. There is a constant element of intracommunication in the Church, and this is why it fits very well within Catholic theology. Surely, being a fan of St. Maximos, you can understand how grace and nature are not diametrically opposed? Neither did the Apostles or others who wrote the scriptures lose their free will (although they received revelation chiefly, they also, in a sense, interpreted it because they had to translate the grandeur and magnitude of divine truth into human words). “They were moved”, says St. Thomas Aquinas, “in a way was proper to their person”.

While the person standing in the Office of Peter certainly does not receive “fresh revelation” (to use the words of Charles Cardinal Journet), he participates in the Church’s inspiration (to use the word literally, “breathes along with the Church”) to discern what is of the Church and what is not. But this is not a one-man-act. The process begins as the Holy Spirit moves the members of the Church and, noticing this reaction, the Pope and bishops in communion with him finalize that “examination of conscience” as part of their pastoral obligation. The pastoral obligation is present because, as we agreed on earlier, the sanctification of the Church is tied to its interior illumination by the light of Christ; not unlike the illumination you and I experience when we make examinations of conscience.

The doctrine never evolved. Doctrine never evolves. The definition of doctrine can evolve. True enough they never used words like Trinity and Hypostasis and Ousia. But that did not evolve the doctrine, it merely defined it. What these words represent is not a change in the belief by the Apostles.

It seems there is confusion. That is the definition of doctrinal development. Nothing is made or synthesized ex nihilo. The truth of our Faith is simply defined ever more clearly, which is what I’m sure you mean by “the definition of doctrine can evolve”. What is known explicitly or implicitly by the Church can change. For example, you cited the doctrinal development of the Trinity, where its meaning was made explicit in philosophical and human terms to us (though nevertheless mysteriously). The “evolution of doctrine”, to a Catholic, has to do with an accidental evolution of the Faith, not a substantial one. The reason being is this:

The apostles, who were sent to hand on to the world the wonderful knowledge which they had of the mystery of Christ, were helped by the prophetic light of inspiration, theopneustie, to express it in statements communicable either by word of mouth or by writing.** But plainly they possessed a greater understand of the message in their own minds than could exist in the formulation of it they could give to their hearers**; [first, for these hearers, though receiving the correct answers, were not always asking the right questions, and secondly, because human words, even if inspired, fall short of the magnitude of God’s Word]… With the preaching of Jesus and the apostles we are at the center of time. Henceforth, and until the moment of the final Parousia, there will be no other fresh revelation to tell us what is to be believed by divine faith. The advance of revelation was finished at the death of the last apostle.
Charles Cardinal Journet, What is Dogma?

 

[Anthony_V]

Did the Holy Spirit come upon Peter alone during Pentecost? Was there any teaching that Peter received “more Holy Spirit” than anyone else? Why can’t other people who are also filled with the Holy Spirit discern the truth?

The Petrine office is a pastoral office, not all people are pastors. As I noted in my post above, the members of the Church move the Pope and the bishops in communion with him to take pastoral action by making a definitive claim. These claims are not arbitrary in the sense of whimsical, but responses to crises of faith, and therefore sanctity, in the Church.
Again, this is because of the pastoral nature of the Office.

There is no Deposit of Faith. There is a once and for all revelation given by Christ. The Ecumenical Councils do not teach anything new that is not already been given by Christ to his Apostles. The Ecumenical Councils only affirm these revelations, it does not present anything new that the Orthodox Fathers did not already believe. The expression of the faith may be new, it may be different, but the essence of the faith, what it is and what it teaches, is exactly the same as what the Apostles themselves were taught and believed.

You are equivocating that which was explicitly known and that which was implicitly known by the Church Fathers. See my quote of Journet above. We are brought into the Faith–the mystery–and continue to understand in greater detail the magnitude of God’s love (and means of submitting to it).

 

[Peter_J]

The excommunication on the Ecumenical Patriarch was lifted…

… about nine hundred years after his death, to be specific.

(Honestly, I’m not sure it matters anyhow. Cardinal Humbert issued the excommunication without realizing that the pope that his authorization came from had already died.)