A
- Status
A
anonymousguy
Guest
An interesting story about the Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Yusuf (1864-97)
“At the First Vatican Council of 1869-70 the dogma of papal infallibility was defined. The Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Yusuf (1864-97) opposed this, and when he next visited Rome was pushed to the floor in front of the Pope, who placed his foot on the Patriarch’s head, thus providing a vivid image confirming all that the East feared and hated.”
John Binns, An Introduction To The Christian Orthodox Churches (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p214
“At the First Vatican Council of 1869-70 the dogma of papal infallibility was defined. The Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Yusuf (1864-97) opposed this, and when he next visited Rome was pushed to the floor in front of the Pope, who placed his foot on the Patriarch’s head, thus providing a vivid image confirming all that the East feared and hated.”
John Binns, An Introduction To The Christian Orthodox Churches (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p214
A
anonymousguy
Guest
An interesting story about the Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Yusuf (1864-97)
“At the First Vatican Council of 1869-70 the dogma of papal infallibility was defined. The Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Yusuf (1864-97) opposed this, and when he next visited Rome was pushed to the floor in front of the Pope, who placed his foot on the Patriarch’s head, thus providing a vivid image confirming all that the East feared and hated.”
John Binns, An Introduction To The Christian Orthodox Churches (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p214
“At the First Vatican Council of 1869-70 the dogma of papal infallibility was defined. The Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Yusuf (1864-97) opposed this, and when he next visited Rome was pushed to the floor in front of the Pope, who placed his foot on the Patriarch’s head, thus providing a vivid image confirming all that the East feared and hated.”
John Binns, An Introduction To The Christian Orthodox Churches (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p214
A
adventistnomore
Guest
“JOHNYJ”, please show respect for the Melkite Christians of the venerable See of Antioch, who are in full communion with Rome. It is not proper (and simply unacceptable) to disparage/disrespect another Church of the Catholic communion.
Credo in Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam.
Credo in Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam.
J
JOHNYJ
Guest
RE : # 22 adventistnomore
I don’t,I didn’t and I wouldn’t.
Everything I said I beleieve is true and you need to lighten up !
I don’t,I didn’t and I wouldn’t.
Everything I said I beleieve is true and you need to lighten up !
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Guy,
The story is an oft-repeated fiction, with no basis in fact. That another ill-informed author has resurrected it is regrettable.
Many years,
Neil
G
gus
Guest
If Peter was Bishop of Antioch and left there to found the church at Rome. And appointed a new Bishop of Antioch. By the logic of some of the posters the New bishop of Antioch was also Supreme as he was a sucessor of Peter even as Peter lived. Fellows I think Ignatious would not be pleased with this logic.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
This has been a most interesting thread and I am amazed at the knowledge of history being displayed. I don’t pretend to be anywhere near as knowledgeable, but it seems to me that the point of the matter is not where Peter was, but who succeeded him upon his death and so forth. When the Pope was in Avignon or many of the other cities where the Popes have taken refuge in times of trouble they did not cease being Pope because they weren’t at home in Rome. It is the succession and not the location that really counts. Peter was appointed, his successors elected to the Petrine Office. When we point to Rome, we are not really pointing to the location, but to the person who occupies the Chair.
- Status