Papal primacy

[pocohombre]

Excellent post, Randy (#138).

Such speculative presumptions are the warp and woof of the confusion and errors about Christ and His Church founded on Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were presbyteros for priest, elder, presbyter, and *episcopos *for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. Ad Philad., 1; Ephes. 6).

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.

“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].

That may be true for small community but I don’t think Rome had only one bishop at this time. …For some reason the Lord used the term priest a thousand times in the OT but only a handful in the new (many NT are in reference to OT). The new testament employs different words like bishop and presbyter.I humbly believe it is because a priest more readily relates to the old testament and it’s sacrifices,and the need for a mediator because of sin and sin nature,hence the sacrifice,hence the priest. Don’t you think something changed in the new testament ?

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #141
The new testament employs different words like bishop and presbyter.I humbly believe it is because a priest more readily relates to the old testament and it’s sacrifices,and the need for a mediator because of sin and sin nature,hence the sacrifice,hence the priest. Don’t you think something changed in the new testament ?

Undoubtedly – the cataclysmic difference as against the O.T. was the institution by Christ, at the Last Supper, of bishops and priests able, through the mandate of Christ to His Apostles, to change bread and wine to His Body and Blood in the Blessed Eucharist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, under the appearances of bread and wine: “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

 

[ezeekl]

So what was meant when Abu stated the other eleven were later given the power to loose and bind ?

He was referring to Mt 18:18 which, in context, is about forgiveness. Here is the passage:

"15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Mt 18:15-18]

This is similar to the passage in John 20:

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. [John 20:19-23]

Notice the similarity of “binding and loosening” in Matthew and “retaining and forgiving” in John. If a man is forgiven of his sin then he is loosed from it but if he is bound to his sin then the sin is retained. This is the authority Jesus gave to the Church through the Apostles. This is very much different from the question that Peter asked about how many times should he forgive someone that sinned against him. Jesus answered in a way that suggested that you should always forgive someone who sins against you. There was no mention of retention of sin. But here in John 20 the issue is not sinning against man but who so ever sins against God. There the Apostles could withhold forgiveness and that sin would therefore, be retained.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #140
So what was meant when Abu stated the other eleven were later given the power to loose and bind ?

’827. Give me one instance where any Apostle ever forgave sin.
St. Paul certainly exercised the power of binding and loosing from sin and the effects of sin in the case of the incestuous Corinthian. In 1 Cor. V., 3, we find him saying, “I have already judged him that hath done so”; and in 2 Cor. II., 10, he justifies…
St. Paul certainly exercised the power of binding and loosing from sin and the effects of sin in the case of the incestuous Corinthian. In 1 Cor. V., 3, we find him saying, “I have already judged him that hath done so”; and in 2 Cor. II., 10, he justifies his forgiveness of the repentant man by saying, “If I have pardoned anything, I have done it in the person of Christ.” ’
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=binding&db=1

 

[pocohombre]

’827. Give me one instance where any Apostle ever forgave sin.
St. Paul certainly exercised the power of binding and loosing from sin and the effects of sin in the case of the incestuous Corinthian. In 1 Cor. V., 3, we find him saying, “I have already judged him that hath done so”; and in 2 Cor. II., 10, he justifies…
St. Paul certainly exercised the power of binding and loosing from sin and the effects of sin in the case of the incestuous Corinthian. In 1 Cor. V., 3, we find him saying, “I have already judged him that hath done so”; and in 2 Cor. II., 10, he justifies his forgiveness of the repentant man by saying, “If I have pardoned anything, I have done it in the person of Christ.” ’
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=binding&db=1

Is this the same binding that Peter received that some say only Peter received ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That may be true for small community but I don’t think Rome had only one bishop at this time. …For some reason the Lord used the term priest a thousand times in the OT but only a handful in the new (many NT are in reference to OT). The new testament employs different words like bishop and presbyter.I humbly believe it is because a priest more readily relates to the old testament and it’s sacrifices,and the need for a mediator because of sin and sin nature,hence the sacrifice,hence the priest. Don’t you think something changed in the new testament ?

Presbyter? Where do you think our word “priest” comes from???

 

[pocohombre]

Undoubtedly – the cataclysmic difference as against the O.T. was the institution by Christ, at the Last Supper, of bishops and priests able, through the mandate of Christ to His Apostles, to change bread and wine to His Body and Blood in the Blessed Eucharist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, under the appearances of bread and wine: “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

So we are not His disciples and can not officiate a mass ? We still need a priest and can not enter holy of holies? In fact isn’t that where you place the Lord, behind a veil,in a box,up on the altar after Mass ? Sometimes He is placed in a monstrance for us to see and worship but I still need a priest to set that up. I am not really a priest as scripture says ? Yet an early father says we are His monstrance.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #145
Is this the same binding that Peter received that some say only Peter received ?

Post #76: ‘ “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]’

#147
So we are not His disciples and can not officiate a mass ?

Disciples are dedicated followers, not ordained to be priests who can celebrate the Eucharist.

The apostles were specially chosen and commissioned by Christ, at the Last Supper, to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is a representation of Christ’s Crucifixion.

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
Extracts:
‘ “He who now makes the offering through the ministry of priests and He who then offered himself on the cross. The only difference is the manner of offering" (Denzinger 1743).

‘The Mass cannot be understood apart from Calvary, of which it is a re-presentation, memorial, and effective application of the merits gained by Christ.

‘The Mass is, moreover, a sacred banquet or paschal meal. The banquet aspect of the Mass is the reception of Holy Communion by the celebrant and the people, when the same Christ who offers himself to the Father as a sacrifice then gives himself to the faithful as their heavenly food.’
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[Randy_Carson]

So what was meant when Abu stated the other eleven were later given the power to loose and bind ?

Once the keys are given to Peter, the other Apostles have a derivative - but subordinate - authority to bind and loose.

 

[ezeekl]

Is this the same binding that Peter received that some say only Peter received ?

Yes and No. Peter was certainly one of the Apostles present in Matthew 18 so therefore yes on that point. But the binding and loosening in Matthew 16 is different. Whereas in Mt 18 it applied to the authority over sin; in Mt 16 the authority is over the church:

"15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:15-19] [RSV]

Jesus says that Peter has received a direct revelation from the Father which Jesus takes as a sign that Peter has been selected by the Father to lead the church. In that role of leadership of the church Peter have the authority to bind and loose. This authority is manifested in the keys which Jesus says He will give to Peter. He will have that authority because just as prefigured in Is 22:22 where the keys to the king’s house was in the possession of the office of chief steward so to Peter will possess the keys while he was in the office of chief steward of the church. And just as the keys would stay with the office and not be buried with the ocupant so too Peter would pass on the authority to his successor upon his death. If you need a modern analogy we have had 44 presidents of the USA. Thirty nine of them have died. Not one of them took any presidential authority to their grave.

 

[pocohombre]

Presbyter? Where do you think our word “priest” comes from???

Yes comes form word meaning elder, older person. It is not the same word used for priest (Levitical) in the OT (hiereus) that Peter uses for all lay people being a priesthood (like OT). So like I said, presbyter is used in NT and OT for “elder”. What is used in old testament for priest (hiereus) is not used for church office, leader in new testament but for all believers.
churchsociety.org/issues_new/misc/questions/iss_misc_questions_whypriests.asp

 

[pocohombre]

Post #76: ‘ “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]’
Disciples are dedicated followers, not ordained to be priests who can celebrate the Eucharist.

Well, beg to differ. A disciple in OT which is our context (Jesus was a Jew), is one who is learning and following the “footsteps” of another, so as to be just like them, as in think like and do like the one being followed.

The apostles were specially chosen and commissioned by Christ, at the Last Supper, to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is a representation of Christ’s Crucifixion.

Please, it’s getting cold enough outside. Christ has chosen every believer, since before the foundation of the world, to do good works, some to teach, some with gift of helps, some to prophesy, some as healers, some apostles etc etc,but all are priests in the old testament sense. We can all be intermediaries, reconcilers for lost souls. (Yes, there will never be another St. Peter or St Paul as there will never be another Abu or Pocohombre.) .

 

[pocohombre]

Excellent post, Randy (#138).

Such speculative presumptions are the warp and woof of the confusion and errors about Christ and His Church founded on Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

In the Acts of the Apostles (14:23) Saints Paul and Barnabas “appointed presbyters (=priests) for them in every church.” Paul and Barnabas were bishops who had received at ordination the power to ordain others. In Greek the words used were presbyteros for priest, elder, presbyter, and *episcopos *for bishop, overseer, supervisor, or guardian. By the time of St Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) he speaks of the bishop as one who has “acquired his ministry, not from himself, nor through men”, and that he is to be regarded “as the Lord Himself.” (Ep. Ad Philad., 1; Ephes. 6).

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and was martyred in Rome in approximately 107 A.D. His letter comes from about 96 A.D. Even at this early date, the threefold hierarchy of bishops, priests (presbyters in Greek), and deacons is present and the practice of celebrating the Holy Eucharist is clearly a long-established practice.

“The substance of the record contained in the Ignatian epistles is this:
While the Christian communities of this period (c.100-110) have many presbyters and deacons, they have only one bishop….there are bishops and the faithful are to obey both the bishops and the presbyters.” The Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 78].

Again, you are using word designating “older person” or “elder” (presbyter- OT and NT)) and not hiereus which designates levitical priest in OT (and NT). Peter says we are all “hiereus”. We are all like levitical priests, though not all presbyters.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #147
So we are not His disciples and can not officiate a mass ?
#153
Again, you are using word designating “older person” or “elder” (presbyter- OT and NT)) and not hiereus which designates levitical priest in OT (and NT). Peter says we are all “hiereus”. We are all like levitical priests, though not all presbyters.

Christ Himself chose the Twelve and gave them special powers of priestly duties:

1. Of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Lk 22:19). This is The Mass.
2. Of teaching (Mt 28: 19-20)
3. Of forgiving sins (Jn 20: 21-23)

Nothing like this in the O.T. No hierus could accomplish that. No real disciple of Christ would claim otherwise.

The Apostles then appointed elders to continue these duties: “. …appointed elders with prayer and fasting in every church.” (Acts 14:23) which is the ordaining of priests.
[See Rumble #447, *Questions People Ask].

Council of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): “If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema.”

As the eminent and faithful Henri Cardinal de Lubac explained in The Motherhood of the Church, Ignatius, 1982, p 343-4:
“There are those, I know, who say to us: ‘But this ministry is not priestly, since the term hiereus, which was the usual term for designating the priest, is absent from the New Testament.’
“I reply: It is quite evident that the early Christians and the apostles themselves had to avoid letting the Church of Christ be confused with the surrounding paganism. They therefore took care not to use this word, which was a ‘technical’ one for designating the pagan priest. The Christian priesthood is without parallel.
“It is a matter of seeing not simply words as such, but the facts, the realities: seeing the Church live – and as far back as the New Testament.”

Which is what Lawrence Cardinal Shehan taught: “The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s *The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers *as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta. “The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

It is high time to face reality.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Posting the Anathemas of the Western Council of Trent is not very convincing.

 

[pocohombre]

Christ Himself chose the Twelve and gave them special powers of priestly duties:

1. Of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Lk 22:19). This is The Mass.
2. Of teaching (Mt 28: 19-20)
3. Of forgiving sins (Jn 20: 21-23)

Nothing like this in the O.T. No hierus could accomplish that. No real disciple of Christ would claim otherwise.

The Apostles then appointed elders to continue these duties: “. …appointed elders with prayer and fasting in every church.” (Acts 14:23) which is the ordaining of priests.
[See Rumble #447, *Questions People Ask

].

Council of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): “If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema.”

As the eminent and faithful Henri Cardinal de Lubac explained in The Motherhood of the Church, Ignatius, 1982, p 343-4:
“There are those, I know, who say to us: ‘But this ministry is not priestly, since the term hiereus, which was the usual term for designating the priest, is absent from the New Testament.’
“I reply: It is quite evident that the early Christians and the apostles themselves had to avoid letting the Church of Christ be confused with the surrounding paganism. They therefore took care not to use this word, which was a ‘technical’ one for designating the pagan priest. The Christian priesthood is without parallel.
“It is a matter of seeing not simply words as such, but the facts, the realities: seeing the Church live – and as far back as the New Testament.”

Which is what Lawrence Cardinal Shehan taught: “The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

Cardinal Lawrence Shehan says that the NT is not a book of neat linguistics. He cites the New American Bible, Hinds, Noble and Eldredge’s Greek English Dictionary, the English Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed’s translation of the Chicago Bible, Kleist-Lilly, Joseph Fitzmer, SJ, and Fr Andre Feuillet’s *The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers *as all acknowledging priests or priesthood in the NT under a variety of terms – presbuteroi, leitourgos, hierourgos, Leitourgon, Leitourgon hierougounta. “The absence of the use of the one term hierus is evidence merely that this one term was not used, not that priest or priesthood are unacknowledged in the NT.” [See *The New Biblical Theorists, Servant Books, 1983, by Msgr George A Kelly, p 84].

It is high time to face reality.Hmmm. So pagans have priests therefore we must be careful linguistically and switch to “elders” but we really mean priests ? I guess St.Peter goofed when he said we are a royal priesthood. He was politically incorrect. Besides, pagans have traditions, pagans pray, pagans have their holy books, do we “disguise” those terms also ? I like it better when we call priests padre/father, even though Jesus says call no man father except for He who is in heaven. …No No No . The only reason we don’t have the term priests is not only a concern for appearing to be pagan but appearing to be Jewish,under the old testament for both offered sacrifices. You don’t need a priest to represent, to commemorate an already sanctified sacrifice.

 

[Abu]

Misplaced_Book #132
Papal Claims also are not so apparent in the Early Church either to use a legalistic view.

More falsehoods. The establishment by Christ of His one Supreme Vicar is unquestionable – St Peter. No spurious “claims” are made against reality except by those who are in denial of the truth. In fact the Primacy of Peter’s successors was explicitly acknowledged before the schism.

‘1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope.

‘Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.”

‘The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given.

‘A century and a half later Pope Gregory I could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” ’
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268

 

[pocohombre]

Christ Himself chose the Twelve and gave them special powers of priestly duties:

1. Of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Lk 22:19). This is The Mass.
2. Of teaching (Mt 28: 19-20)
3. Of forgiving sins (Jn 20: 21-23)
   Nothing like this in the O.T. No hierus could accomplish that. No real disciple of Christ would claim otherwise.

So no OT levitical priest (hiereus) could forgive sin nor offer sacrifice to that end nor teach ??? People in OT had no teaching, no scarifice, no forgiveness ? Granted, the NT is perfected in all 3 areas, so why do you still use a priest, for they could not fully deliver in the old testament ?

The Apostles then appointed elders to continue these duties: “. …appointed elders with prayer and fasting in every church.” (Acts 14:23) which is the ordaining of priests.

Yes thank you, elders-presbyters were ordained but not priests as you say. You won’t find that in the greek (heirues) nor in the latin. Your own words say they appointed elders.

Council of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): “If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema.”

Yes, you offer to God the sacrifice. In my humble opinion this is not apostolic or early church .They offered one thing as first fathers wrote -one thing only -a sacrifice of thanksgiving, a love feast. We don’t offer Christ up to the Father as you say in your mass but are thankful that God offered Christ to us. Words are similar but two totally different dispositions.

 

[pocohombre]

Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

More falsehoods. The establishment by Christ of His one Supreme Vicar is unquestionable – St Peter. No spurious “claims” are made against reality except by those who are in denial of the truth. In fact the Primacy of Peter’s successors was explicitly acknowledged before the schism.

‘1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope.

‘Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.”

‘The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given.

‘A century and a half later Pope Gregory I could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” ’
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268

Who presided over council at Nicea, was it Constantine ? Did not the council give full authority to bishops of Alexandria ans Antioch ? Now if Rome was over them then it is not full authority is it ? Canon #6 “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”

 

[Misplaced_Book]

More falsehoods. The establishment by Christ of His one Supreme Vicar is unquestionable – St Peter. No spurious “claims” are made against reality except by those who are in denial of the truth. In fact the Primacy of Peter’s successors was explicitly acknowledged before the schism.

‘1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope.

‘Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.”

‘The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given.

‘A century and a half later Pope Gregory I could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” ’
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268

Unquestionable you say? And here we are, centuries upon centuries later, discussing it.

Your Ultramontanism is old hat, Abu…we aren’t buying, and you can proof text with all of the ripped from context quotes and polemics you like. Old Rome was no monolith, and that doesn’t mean we don’t love you…we just can’t resume Communion with you at this time.