Pope Fiction

[Mickey]

Doesn’t “primary” usually mean “first”?

Amen. But it does not mean ruler over the others. It does not mean supreme. It does not mean infallible.

 

[Mickey]

With the definition of infallibility, the Catholic Church has erected the ultimate light that no other light can detract or distract from. Catholics know where to seek their truth in the Pope and his fellow leaders.

It was a departure from true belief and caused the gap of the schism to widen.

 

[Lazerlike42]

At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16.

Augustine does not say his interpretation was incorrect. He says that he once presented the interpretation that Peter was the rock, and that he later presented other interpretations. He leaves it to the reader to make up his mind for himself. Augustine makes no statement as to which interpretation is correct. This might be in large part because he recognized that, as he said for instance in his Confessions, he was a terrible speaker of Greek.

We are not discussing the Eucharist

We’re not, but the principle is exactly the same. Many fathers said that the Eucharist was symbolic. This doesn’t mean that they ruled out its being truly the body and blood of Christ - they recognized both as true. In the same way, some fathers said that the rock was Peter’s confession, but this did not mean that they ruled out Peter himself as also being the rock.

**If you’re going to reject Peter’s identity as the rock of Matthew 16 on the basis that some fathers recognized alternative interpretations, then you must reject the Eucharistic presence of Christ on that same basis. **

… the early Church never had this modern idea of the papacy as a supreme infallible ruler of the universal Church–an innovation that was… dogmatized by Pius IX in 1870… supreme infallibility is an innovation of the post-schism Latin Church.

3 Constantinople accepted Pope Agatho’s assertion that “pope after pope” had spoken with “the infallible voice of the Roman Church.” That’s about 1400 years before pius IX and 600 before the schism. This is far more than honor or respect.

With all due respect, you have shown nothing of the sort. Supreme papal infallibility was not a known concept in the early Church.

I have no idea what “Supreme papal infallibility” is, as it is no doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Church recognizes papal infallibility in highly particular circumstances and She recognizes universal papal jurisdiction. As to the former, I have cited one example of Agatho, something that has yet to even be acknowledged, much less refuted. As to the latter, I have cited:

• Archbishop of Constantinople Anatolius from the time of Chalcedon asserting Pope Leo’s authority to confirm or reject an ecumenical council
• St. Chrysostom’s teaching that St. Peter had the same authority as the other 120 attendees at the Council of Jerusalem combined
• Eastern historian Socrates Scholasticus, writing before Chalcedon, reporting that a canon prohibits any decisions against the opinions of the bishop of Rome
• Gregory the Great’s excommunication of several eastern bishops, asserting explicitly his jurisdiction over “the whole Church”

Let me now add to that:

• “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, and 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, since his denial had been purged away, **He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; **and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep… He made Peter the teacher not of that See [of Jerusalem] but of the world… [Peter] was given the presidency over the brethren…”( St. John Chrysostom, Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])
• “God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, ‘Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’.” (St. John Chrysostom, Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])
• For since [Peter’s] great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself." (St. John Chrysostom, Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 395[429])
• “Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Coelestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.” (Council of Ephesus; the canons and the letter of Celestine are paired here as being authoritative)
• “Let your holiness consider the formof the writings of the holy and venerable pope Coelestine, the bishop, who has exhorted your holiness (not as if teaching the ignorant, but as reminding them that know) that those things which he had long ago defined, and now thought it right to remind you of, ye might give command to be carried out to the uttermost, according to the canon of the common faith, and according to the use of the Catholic Church.” (Papal Legate Projectus at Council of Ephesus)
• “And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, Leo, **Archbishop of all the churches, **who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is.” (Papal legates at Council of Chalcedon)

Peace and God bless

 

[Mickey]

and that he later presented other interpretations.

he was a terrible speaker of Greek.

Now you make excuses for Blessed Augustine.

In the same way, some fathers said that the rock was Peter’s confession, but this did not mean that they ruled out Peter himself as also being the rock.

Some identified St Peter as the Rock. Some identified his confession as the Rock. And some identified Christ as the Rock. But none of them EVER identified the successors of St Peter as the supreme infallible ruler of the universal Church.

If you’re going to reject Peter’s identity as the rock of Matthew 16 on the basis that some fathers recognized alternative interpretations, then you must reject the Eucharistic presence of Christ on that same basis.

That is silly. I look at the early Councils of the Undivided Church in conjunction with the consensus of the Fathers and of course Sacred Scripture. These three sources say nothing about the Ultramontanist invention of the supreme infallible dogma.

Constantinople accepted Pope Agatho’s assertion that “pope after pope” had spoken with “the infallible voice of the Roman Church.” That’s about 1400 years before pius IX and 600 before the schism. This is far more than honor or respect

It is honor and respect.
Popes in the undivided Church were not able to establish dogmas apart from a council. They were not considered to be supreme infallible pontiffs.

As to the latter, I have cited:

None of your citations point to the odd dogma of infallibility in the early Church.

"He saith to him, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter?

All Apostles were called to feed the sheep. This triple affirmation of St Peter was to make amends for his triple denial.

He was the chosen one of the apostles

He was first amongst equals. The Holy Orthodox Church highly venerates St Peter. There is a strict two week fast prior to the feast day of SS Peter and Paul.

St John Chrysostom also speaks of St John the Evangelist holding the keys and being a pillar of the Churches throughout the world.

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.
St John Chrysosotom

 

[Lazerlike42]

Mickey, with all due respect, you haven’t even come close to attempting to address the evidence I presented. In fact, again with all due respect, from your response, one might conclude that you didn’t even read what I had to say.

For example, I quoted Agatho specifically asserting that the Roman Church was “infallible,” and yet you said he only asserted honor and respect. “Infallible” does not mean honor and respect; it means ‘infallible.’

After this quotation, you said that none of the examples I cited pointed to infallibility, but in introducing these citations I said that Agatho’s quotation supported infalliblity, whereas these citations support universal jurisdiction. I never asserted these in favor of infalliblity, yet you dismiss them as unsupportive of infallibility.

This is because they clearly support the universal jurisdiction of the pope. Your position rejects not only infallibility, but universal jurisdiction. You do not try to address the citations’ support and explicit assertion of universal jurisdiction, because you are unable to. Rather than acknowledge this, you simply choose to ignore them. God will not accept the same silence if He one day asks you why you did not acknowledge these.

You then reject my argument regarding the Eucharist and the interpretation of Peter as the Rock by saying that the early Church knows nothing of the supreme infallible dogma. I was not arguing about papal infalliblity at all here but about the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and the fact that some fathers interpreted certain things in multiple ways.

From this I can do nothing but conclude that you did not read my post, or are unable to understand my language, or that you are dishonestly and polemically ignoring the purposes of my arguments and putting forth papal infallibility as though it is the doctrine I seek to defend even in those places where I do not.

Furthermore, you continue to make a caricature of the Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church neither now nor ever has asserted the popes to be “supreme infallible rulers of the universal Church.” They are the universal rulers, as St. Chrysostom teaches when he says that Peter was the “ruler of the whole world” who “received the government of the whole world,” and they are infallible, as St. Agatho teaches when he says that “pope after pope” has “spoken with the voice of the infallible Roman Church,” but they are not supremely infallible in the sense that nothing they can do will fall into error.

You say, “All Apostles were called to feed the sheep. This triple affirmation of St Peter was to make amends for his triple denial” but in this you are attacking the position of St. Chrysostom, not me! It is Chrysostom that teaches that St. Peter alone was given the charge to feed the sheep and that the others were passed over. It is St. Chrysostom who teaches that in this passage, Peter is given “the rule” over the other apostles. Here is an explicit, unambiguous and inarguable assertion by an eastern father of the universal jurisdiction of St. Peter, and you utterly reject it on no grounds other than that it disagrees with your belief. You then reject St. Chrysostom’s teaching that Peter was “the chosen one of the apostles.”

May St. Chrysostom pray for you.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, with all due respect, .

With all due respect, I have read everything you have written, and it is not a convincing position that you propose. I’m sorry, but it just does not mesh with early Church history. You have taken a dogma that was defined in 1870 and invented by post-schism Rome Ultramontanism, and attempted to justify it through the early Church Fathers, the early Councils, and your interpretation of Sacred Scripture. With all due respect, it is not there. You cannot make this innovated doctrine work with the early Church–because it was not known to the early Church. You attempt to rationalize primacy with supremacy/infallibility–it doesn’t work.

God will not accept the same silence if He one day asks you why you did not acknowledge these

When I face my judgement I will plead for mercy because I know that I am a wretched sinner. My hope is that God will have mercy on this sinner. My hope for you is the same, my brother.

I was not arguing about papal infalliblity

Perhaps this is our miscommunication. I am not going to argue about the Holy Eucharist. You can do that with the protestants. The Holy Eucharist is an awesome and glorious Mystery and I do not accept your patristic analogies. Sorry.

From this I can do nothing but conclude that you did not read my post, or are unable to understand my language

I have read them. I do not accept your arguments.

or that you are dishonestly and polemically ignoring the purposes of my arguments and putting forth papal infallibility as though it is the doctrine I seek to defend even in those places where I do not.

So you do not defend papal infallibility? Now I am confused. Perhaps I am not understanding you after all.

The Catholic Church neither now nor ever has asserted the popes to be "supreme infallible rulers of the universal Church.

From the Vatican website:

“When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, **he enjoys that infallibility **with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals. Therefore, these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are unreformable per se, and not because of the Church’s consent” (DS 3074).

It is Chrysostom that teaches that St. Peter alone was given the charge to feed the sheep and that the others were passed over.

I can post dozens of quotes by St John Chrysostom. He Says St John the Evangelist holds the keys. He says many things about many Apostles, Prophets, and Saints. You must read him in context. He was nicknamed Golden mouth for his eloquent speaking style. Holy Orthodoxy uses his Liturgy (and St Basil and St James). He does not contradict the position of Holy Ortohodoxy.

You then reject St. Chrysostom’s teaching that Peter was “the chosen one of the apostles.”

I have never rejected that St Peter was the first amongst equals. Please do not insult me.

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now
St John Chrysosotom

The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere
St John Chrysosotom

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). 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. 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
St John Chrysosotom

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…
St John Chrysosotom

Dear Lazer,
There is a thread on the Non-Catholic forums titled, “papal problems”. Many of the same things are being discussed there. I have become weary of duplicating posts, so I am going to concentrate on that thread. I will leave this one. I invite you over there. There are a few Orthodox posters over there who are much more educated and better apologists than myself. Since you have trouble understanding me, it is my hope that perhaps you will be able to better understand them. Peace and blessings to you.

May St. Chrysostom pray for you.

Thank you. May he pray for you also.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Mickey, none of those claims have anything to do with the translation of Matthew 16:18. The fact is that every rule of Greek grammar in the book completely rules out the possibility that the rock is Peter’s confession, and every rule in the book requires that Peter himself is the Rock. That’s all I was talking about in that post.

St. John Chrysostom knew a thing or two about Greek grammar and rhetoric (hence "golden-mouthed), yet if i recall correctly, he identifies the rock as Peter’s confession.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And also considering the idea that Peter’s confession was the rock and not Peter himself was not heard from until protestant apologetics arose. The early Church is somewhat unanimous in agreeing the rock is Peter, that will tell you something on how to interpret the verse. (If anyone has quotes from ECFs supporting his confession being the rock, I’d love to see them, but I have not found any.)

Actually, as has been posted several times, a survey of the ECF shows they identified the rock with the confession a majority of citations.

 

[Lazerlike42]

St. John Chrysostom knew a thing or two about Greek grammar and rhetoric (hence "golden-mouthed), yet if i recall correctly, he identifies the rock as Peter’s confession.

He identified it as both. Here is just one example:

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Alright, here are a number of pieces of evidence supporting universal papal jurisdiction, starting with Algernon’s St. Chrysostom quote:

St. Chrysostom explains that Peter, though he had the same authority (power to ordain - to declare) as the whole group of 120 put together, did not simply say “we are sufficient” (note the royal we that popes of Chrysostom’s time used) because he was beyond vain-glory. He later says that Peter had been put in charge over all the rest.

Are you going to post St. John’s homily on Matthew 16?

Here, the Archbishop of Constantinople Anatolius apologizes to Pope Leo for the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, and tells him that the entire force of confirming the council lies with Leo’s authority. Leo struck canon 28 from the council, and for the next 600 years no Eastern Church mentions more than 27 canons of Chalcedon.

The Church continued to act on canon 28 of Chalcedon and the corresponding one of Constantinople I. Leo complains in his letters that even his suffragan bishops in Illyrium accept canon 28. And Anatolius and his successors continued to occupy 2nd place, as Leo admitted in his assessment of Ephesus II, where Constantinople was placed after Alexandria and Antioch and Leo complained of that.

Eastern historian Socrates Scholasticus, writing before Chalcedon, says that a canon commands that no ordinances be made against the opinion of the bishop of Rome. Scholasticus was so much an easterner that he wrote of the western Church only on the very rare occasion that it impacted the east in some way, adding great support to his impartiality.

The site seems to be down right now, but as I recall Socrated doesn’t say such a canon exists, just that the bishop of Rome was claiming the existence of such a canon, which no one else seems to have known of, and the pope was unable to cite.

The Council accepts, approves, and applauds the letter of Pope Agatho, which includes these and other statements asserting universal papal jurisdiction.

and anathematizes Pope Honorius.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Pope Gregory the Great excommunicates John, the bishop of the Byzantine cirty Prima Justiniana (Epistle iii, iv).

It was a ROMAN city, btw.

And it was in the patriarchate of Rome. The area did not completely go over to the patriarchate of New Rome until later.

Pope Gregory the Great Epistle V, xx. For countless more Gregory quotes, see globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm.

Yes, Gregory made a lot of claims which the Church ignored, like his protests of New Rome being granted the title Ecumenical Patriarch.

• Acts of Session I.

The same council explicitely cited Constantinople I, a synod held without any imput from the Pope of Rome, or even anyone from his patriarchate.

And Leo complained of Constantinople not heading the synod at Ephesus.

• Acts of Session IV.

Yet they did not accept the tome until it had been examined.

• Letter of the Council to Pope Agatho

For more from the Councils, see globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/ecu.htm.

The same Council that anathematized Pope Honorius.

These are just a few of the pieces of evidence. More could be provided if I had the time.

Deja vu all over again.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I as well started getting arguments from Orthodox Christians about the Papacy. After doing some research about the Papacy, I realized that the Orthodox are completely wrong.

Oh? Were you reading Pastor Aeternus?

All of the Church Fathers agree that the Roman Church has the authority and power over the other churches. To say otherwise is merely a cop-out.

Can you back that up?

No, you can’t.

Of course the Papacy didn’t exist as it does now, however it was still there and people acknowledged it has leadership. Read the Early Church Fathers, I would be suprised if any disagreed with this.

The ECF did not recognize a supreme pontiff.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Are you going to post St. John’s homily on Matthew 16?

St. John Chrysostom interpreted Matthew 16:18 in different ways. He allowed for more than one interpretation, just as did many fathers regarding the Eucharist. This does not mean that he rejected Peter’s being the Rock, any more than other fathers rejected the Eucharistic presence of Christ when they presented symbolic interpretations.

The Church continued to act on canon 28 of Chalcedon and the corresponding one of Constantinople I. Leo complains in his letters that even his suffragan bishops in Illyrium accept canon 28. And Anatolius and his successors continued to occupy 2nd place, as Leo admitted in his assessment of Ephesus II, where Constantinople was placed after Alexandria and Antioch and Leo complained of that.

So far as I know of, no Eastern church recognizes any more than 27 canons of Chalcedon for 600 years following Pope Leo’s rejection of it.

In any case, the fact is that Anatolius here asserts that the Council is reserved to the confirmation of Leo’s authority. Whatever place Anatolius occupied, this is what he said.

The site seems to be down right now, but as I recall Socrated doesn’t say such a canon exists, just that the bishop of Rome was claiming the existence of such a canon, which no one else seems to have known of, and the pope was unable to cite.

Sozomen says that the bishop of Rome claimed its existence; Socrates simply asserts it as fact.

In any case, even if it merely were that the pope claimed of it, why on earth would there be no protest against so sweeping and powerful a claim if it was not regarded as true? Would not all of the bishops of the world, especially the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, have left so great a condemnation of this assertion that it would be inarguablly false?

 

[Lazerlike42]

and anathematizes Pope Honorius.

This has been dealt with many times.

As regards Honorius:

• First an foremost, Honorius’ letter in no way qualifies as Papal teaching. It was written in a letter to one Patriarch and was not presented to the Church as a whole. The letter wasn’t just a private correspondance as some claim, because it was written as an official reply to a Patriarch, but it was not directed towards the whole Church, which is what makes something the pope says into a binding teaching.

Apart from being presented to the whole Church, a pope’s teaching certainly has more weight than if any old priest or bishop said it, but it doesn’t come close to qualifying as something which is said to be “the teaching of Rome” or “the teaching of the Pope.” In other words, its a good guideline, but anyone who likes is more than free to simply ignore such a statement.

• Second, it doesn’t appear that Honorius used the expression “One Will” in a heretical sense. Prior to the Council, Pope John IV had written the “Apology for Pope Honorius.” This was a letter in which he defended Honorius, asserting that Honorius had not meant to say Christ has no human will, but rather that Christ did not have two warring “human wills” in him like the rest of us do: the desire to sin and the desire to do good.

Also prior to the Council, Maximus the Confessor argued the same thing, citing John Symponus who actually had written the letter for Honorius as having verified this understanding. Reading the entire quote of Honorius seems to clearly confirm that this is what he was doing: “Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.”

• Third, the very Council itself read aloud and accepted the letter that Pope Agatho (who called the Council) had sent to the Emperor, saying: “This same holy and universal synod, here present, faithfully accepts and welcomes with open hands the report of Agatho, most holy and most blessed pope of elder Rome…” This letter said, among other things:
• “this Apostolic Church of His * has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error…”
• “the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome]… by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations…”
• according to Giovanni Domenico Mansi’s collection of the Councils of the Church, "The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.”

Thus, the Council most **clearly ***did not believe that Honorius had taught heresy in any way that would qualify as being official teaching of the Pope, lest they would not have so enthusiastically endorsed these claims, or the others contained in the letter.

• Fourth, it was Pope Leo II who finally approved the Council (Pope Agatho had died in the middle of it). In his confirmation, he wrote, “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,…and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” Some manuscripts end with “attempted to pollute its purity,” which would be a bit more powerful, yet still does not declare that he had in fact succeeded in doing so, that is, actually taught error.

Nevertheless, we can understand Leo’s meaning by his letter to Spanish bishops, which read, “With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence,” and the Visiogothic king Erwig, which read, “…and with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.” It is clear that Honorius was condemned not as a heretic, but for negligently having used imprecise language and permitting heresy to spread.

Peace and God bless

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Even if this is so, it’s irrelevant. St. John Chrysostom is an eastern example, and if I’m not mistaken Augustine a western one, of the fact that the interpretationg that Peter’s confession is the rock does not exclude the interpretation that Peter himself is the rock.

It’s the same with the Eucharist. Several fathers, including Augustine, taught that it is a symbol of Christ’s body. That doesn’t mean they didn’t also believe it really is Christ’s body.

You quoted a famous passage in which Augustine says that the rock is Christ, but you left out the words that immediately precede those in which he says that he has also taught the Church was built upon Peter himself. This is my point exactly: the fathers often held that both interpretations were possible. To quote half of a paragraph and leave off the other half because it doesn’t support your argument is really quite dishonest, if done intentionally. As Catholics, we recognize that the fathers taught both of these things.

What matters even more than this, however, is the clear and unambiguous evidence that the early Church treated the pope as though he had jurisdiction over them all.

Oh? the whole Church rebuked Pope Victor when he tried that.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It was a ROMAN city, btw.

And it was in the patriarchate of Rome. The area did not completely go over to the patriarchate of New Rome until later.

You’d have to prove these claims. Every source I can find asserts that it was a Byzantine city.

Furthermore, he excommunicated other Eastern bishops as well.

Yes, Gregory made a lot of claims which the Church ignored, like his protests of New Rome being granted the title Ecumenical Patriarch.

The point is that the claims were made at such an early time in history.

The same council explicitely cited Constantinople I, a synod held without any imput from the Pope of Rome, or even anyone from his patriarchate.

And as such, Gregory the Great eventually approved the Council. Even Photius himself claimed that Pope Damasus approved of the Council.

And Leo complained of Constantinople not heading the synod at Ephesus.

I’m uncertain as to the relevance of this.

Yet they did not accept the tome until it had been examined.

• Letter of the Council to Pope Agatho

I’m uncertain what this refers to.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because our faith is meant to develop over time, basic doctrines and dogmas have never changed, however things do change, and don’t try to state that Eastern Orthodox Church has never changed, because it has.

only to stay the same.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, although the Pope did not have the authority that he does now, the formal consensus by the Early Church Fathers, was that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church on Earth, and has all authority over the Church. When one stops following the Bishop of Rome, they stop following the Church. This was exceedingly clear.

Evidently not, as the whole Church rebuked Pope Victor, Constaninople I was held without imput from the Pope of Rome, and by saints not in communion with Rome, the Fifth Council struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs, the Sixth Council anathematized Pope Honorius, etc…etc…etc…

 

[Lazerlike42]

Oh? the whole Church rebuked Pope Victor when he tried that.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

In any case, there is nothing against rubuking a Pope in Catholic teaching. It exists in the tradition of such saints as Catherine of Sienna.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think you need to see what Papal Infallibility is and isn’t. Once you understand it, you will see that the Bishop of Rome, has always had this.

Again, do some research, the Church believed this long before 1870

Evidently not, as has been posted there are catechissms with the nihil obstat and imprematur which state that papal infallibility is a charge invented by the Protestants.