Seregei Bulgakov's "The Vatican Dogma"

[Xavier]

The Pope, by the very nature of its office in having unique charisms that no other bishop has, it being above all Bishops, and it being a Divinely Instituted office established by Christ Himself (unlike the Cardinals, which was established by man), must necessarily be different as a Holy Order of the Catholic Church than merely a Bishop.

Disagree. The Papacy is a permanent Office; it is not, however, a non-episcopal order. How will you answer the syllogism. If the Papacy is an order of holy orders, then it cannot be lost. But the Papacy can be lost (through resignation etc). Therefore, the Papacy is not an order.

Next, if we apply a similar standard, are Arch-Deacons, Arch-Priests, Archimandrites, Archimandrites and Archbishops also in the Orthodox Church some special kind of holy orders, by this argument? For Catholics, Archbishops and Patriarchs are Bishops with added jurisdiction.

Fr. Bulgakov said, "If it be said that papacy is not a special order but only an office, since the pope is in bishop's orders" and that's exactly what it is. The Papacy is an episcopal see, the See of St. Peter in Rome, which is also called the Apostolic Throne by St. Athanasius and the Fathers; like the see of constantinople is an office, the See of St. Peter is an office, but has universal jurisdiction.

Now, here are my questions to you, based on the article:

1. Fr. Bulgakov claims "By proclaiming papal sovereignty the council abolished itself, committed dogmatic suicide, declared its own non-existence"; but, this is contrary to Conciliar Precedent in the Early Church. The Council of Chalcedon decreed, "Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children". If, therefore, the Council of Chalcedon can faithfully recognize the Pope of Rome, as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Catholic Episcopate, without denying all the divine rights of the Episcopacy as well, then there is no contradiction in the Vatican Council doing the same. How can you understand, Live, what Chalcedon decreed - that the Roman Pontiff was begged to honor the decision of the Council by Papal assent to the definitions? "By proclaiming papal" assent as necessary, did the council of Chalcedon also "abolish itself"? Or rather, did it support itself?

2. Next, Fr. Bulgakov goes into detail about the Council of Constance; but surely Father remembers the "Robber Council" of 449, which Pope St. Leo annulled. Now, only a greater authority can annul the decision of a lower tribunal, as a Supreme court annuls the decision of a high court. Thus, the very annulment of a Robber Council and its declaration as such constitutes a patristic proof of the Pope's universal authority. Patriarch St. Flavian wrote to Pope St. Leo the Great: "Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound." How do you understand this Patriarchal declaration? How is it that a Pope could annul a Council and declare it void?

3. Finally, Fr. Bulgakov says, "There is no contradiction if a constituent assembly elects a monarch or a dictator and then annuls itself in submitting to him: it rightfully hands over to him the fullness of its own power,—and the sover­eignty is not interrupted"; but the Catholic Church does not teach that the Episcopacy is annulled because of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Papacy; quite the contrary, as we saw from Pope St. Gregory the Great, cited in the CE, and in the First Vatican Council, the Particular Jurisdiction of the Bishops, like the True Jurisdiction of a High Court, or the True Authority of a Commander over his Soldiers (though a General's Authority is superior to both), is by no means annulled, but rather, confirmed, strengthened, ratified. The rule of Chief Ministers is not annulled because there is a Prime Ministers. The rule of Governors is not annulled because there is a President. Rather, there is a union of all through the supreme authority of a single president, or a single Prime Minister. Do Prime Ministers annul Chief Ministers?

[Xavier]

Finally, how will you answer the Canons of Sardica, promuglated at an Eastern Council with Patriarch St. Athanasius in attendance? Just three canons: "Canon 3c: if a bishop is convicted of an offence by a verdict in a case, and if the convicted bishop objects to the verdict and seeks recourse by asking for reconsideration, then the bishops who judged the case – the trial court – should "honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle" and write to the bishop of Rome about the case; if the bishop of Rome – the court of second instance – decides that the case should be retried, then "let that be done, and let him appoint judges;" if the bishop of Rome decides that the case should not be retried, then he shall confirm the verdict.[vii]

Canon 4: if a bishop is sentenced with deposition in a case by a verdict "of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places," and if the deposed bishop "announces that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome," then the execution of the sentence is suspended, in that a replacement bishop shall not be ordained to the see of the deposed bishop until after the case has "been determined in the judgment of" the bishop of Rome.[viii]

Canon 7: if a bishop is deposed from his office by bishops of his region acting as a court, and if the deposed bishop takes refuge with the bishop of Rome and seeks recourse by asking the bishop of Rome for a retrial, and if the bishop of Rome decides that the case should be retried; then the bishop of Rome may write to those bishops of a neighbouring province to investigate and conduct a retrial. The deposed bishop may ask the bishop of Rome to delegate priests to the retrial; at his discretion, the bishop of Rome can send priests acting as legates with his authority to serve as judges in cases where the bishop of Rome decides that the bishops of a neighbouring province alone are insufficient.[ix]"

This is a clear analogy to high courts and the Supreme Court. The high courts are local tribunals of Bishops as Judges (Jurisdiction means, power to Judge). The Supreme Court is the Church of Rome, and the Supreme Court Justice is the Bishop of Rome. Hence, "if the deposed bishop takes refuge with the bishop of Rome", then "the bishop of Rome may write to those bishops of a neighbouring province to investigate and conduct a retrial" and "at his discretion, the bishop of Rome can send priests acting as legates with his authority to serve as judges" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Serdica

God Bless. 

[Kreuzritter]

1. Fr. Bulgakov claims "By proclaiming papal sovereignty the council abolished itself, committed dogmatic suicide, declared its own non-existence"; but, this is contrary to Conciliar Precedent in the Early Church. The Council of Chalcedon decreed, "Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children".

He pastes these same quotations in every forum he visits. He knows very well what the Orthodox answer to this piece of eisegesis is and that it in no wise implies approval from the Bishop of Rome was necessary for a council to have dogmatic force.

If, therefore, the Council of Chalcedon can faithfully recognize the Pope of Rome, as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Catholic Episcopate, without denying all the divine rights of the Episcopacy as well, then there is no contradiction in the Vatican Council doing the same.

The contradiction lies in what was the undeniable necessity of having to define the dogma of papal infallibility through a council rather than have the Pope just pull himself up by his own bootstraps and declare it ex cathedra. Or would it be binding to believe a pope can define dogmas ex cathedra because a pope defined a dogma ex cathedra and that is binding? Yeah right. Vatican I was necessary for the dogma of papal infallibility. BECAUSE WITHOUT A COUNCIL, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS BINDING. BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO THE REMARKABLE MENTAL GYMNASTICS OF ULTRAMONTANE REVISIONISTS, IT WAS NEVER "ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE and BY EVERYONE" BELIEVED.

And the proof of praxis?  After Vatican I, ex cathedra dogmas magically pop into existence where before there were none.

How can you understand, Live, what Chalcedon decreed - that the Roman Pontiff was begged to honor the decision of the Council by Papal assent to the definitions? "By proclaiming papal" assent as necessary, did the council of Chalcedon also "abolish itself"? Or rather, did it support itself?

Stop lying. You already know the answer.

2. Next, Fr. Bulgakov goes into detail about the Council of Constance; but surely Father remembers the "Robber Council" of 449, which Pope St. Leo annulled. Now, only a greater authority can annul the decision of a lower tribunal, as a Supreme court annuls the decision of a high court. Thus, the very annulment of a Robber Council and its declaration as such constitutes a patristic proof of the Pope's universal authority. Patriarch St. Flavian wrote to Pope St. Leo the Great: "Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound." How do you understand this Patriarchal declaration? How is it that a Pope could annul a Council and declare it void?

No. Any orthodox bishop has the right to annul the work of heretics. You see the same thing happening in the history of the Eastern orthodox church. Rome was appealed to because it was recognised as an ancient seat of orthodox teaching. It had, at that point, never defected. Again you are saying nothing new and already know the answers. If you think there are no answers, go on Jay Dyer's Discord channel and debate him there. Make sure to record it.

[Xavier]

I've never seen this article before, and am responding to it for the first time. Because some of you Gallican Heretics deny the dogma of Papal Infallibility, thus perilously putting your eternal souls in grave danger, I posted ten clear proofs of Papal Infallibility in another thread. Nobody even tried to answer them. Because in fact the Catholic Faith is the true Faith, the demonstrations in favor of it are not objections that can be answered, but proofs that cannot be refuted; and that only those who fail to correspond to Grace will obstinately fight - just like the proofs of the existence of God; or the demonstrations in favor of Christ Our Lord's Miracles and Fulfilled Prophesies.

Virtually every Syrian Orthodox Christian (I know several) will tell you the Council of Chalcedon dogmatized Papal Infallibility and Primacy of Jurisdiction - part of the reason they say they reject it. It's only Greek Orthodox Christians, who want to accept Chalcedon but refuse Pope St. Leo the Great's clear teaching of Papal Supremacy (and the Council of Chalcedon saying "Peter has spoken thus through Leo. Anathema to him who does not thus believe"), who are inconsistent in that regard; the two choices, therefore, are to reject the Council of Chalcedon with the Syrians, or to accept the Papacy with the Catholics. Although because Fr. Philip at Ephesus had already confirmed the Petrine Privileges of the Papacy, saying, "It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm: your ultimate choice boils down to be this: to be mad with the Nestorians, who deny Mary is the Mother of God, or to be wise with the Catholic Church. No prizes to others for guessing which you want to choose.

Even if you disagree with the Council of Ephesus, the value of this historical testimony still stands; "doubtful to none" and "known to all ages" that "Blessed Peter" is "the prince and head of the Apostles" and "the Column of the Faith", moreover "the foundation of the Catholic Church" and that he received from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, "the keys of the kingdom", along with "the power of binding and loosing sins" (which is jurisdiction) and that he forever "lives and judges in his Successors". This testimony was cited in Vatican I. It is like SO OBVIOUS that many of you have never read what you attempt to refute. The First Vatican Council cites 4 clear proofs from earlier Councils.

Jay Dyer is welcome to attempt to debate me. I'm not scared of anybody; the Lord is my strength. The Truth is the Catholic Faith and you don't want to accept it. It was the Sovereign Pontiff who declared the Immaculate Conception, whom God privileged with hearing the Dogma of Papal Infallibility proclaimed. As when St. Peter confessed that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of God, he deserved to hear that he would be made the Rock of the Church, and therefore Vicar of Christ on Earth, and given Heaven's Keys to loose with perpetual divine guidance whatever Heaven wanted on earth, so His Holiness Bl. Pope Pius IX, who declared the Immaculate Conception after consulting all Catholic Bishops, was given by God the privilege of having the dogmatic Truth of the Papacy declared before all.

Our Lady of Quito had already prophesied all this centuries before: "The Pope's "infallibility will be declared a dogma of Faith by the same Pope chosen to proclaim the dogma of the mystery of my Immaculate Conception. He will be persecuted and imprisoned in the Vatican through the usurpation of the Pontifical States and through the malice, envy, and avarice of an earthly monarch." https://www.tfp.org/prophecies-of-our-lady-of-good-success-about-our-times/ Also documented in: http://www.piustheninth.com/chapter7.htm  Pope Pius IX was Prophesied 200 Years Before His Reign ...
The Blessed Virgin unmistakenly predicted happenings in the life of the future Pontiff Pius IX which cannot be denied took place."

[queen.saints]

"Gallican Heretics"

It has a nice ring to it.

[Kreuzritter]

I've never seen this article before, and am responding to it for the first time.

You're repeating the same cut and paste arguments you've made on a dozen different forums, and the exact ones I pointed out here have already been answered. You know what the Orthodox answer, right or wrong, to them is, or you simply refuse to read the answers that have been given to you.

As for the entire controversy, I refer you here

https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2019/09/24/tome-of-pope-st-leo-critically-examined-by-the-council-of-chalcedon-rebuttal-to-erick-ybarra/
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2019/12/15/when-plagiarism-goes-wrong-part-i/
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2019/12/20/when-plagiarism-goes-wrong-part-ii/
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2019/12/23/rebuttal-to-erick-ybarras-pope-st-celestine-i-422-432-and-immediate-universal-jurisdiction-part-i/
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2019/12/24/rebuttal-to-erick-ybarras-pope-st-celestine-i-422-432-and-immediate-universal-jurisdiction-part-ii/
https://ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2019/12/30/pope-st-celestine-i-and-immediate-universal-jurisdiction-rebuttal-to-erick-ybarra/

and here

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIfo15jV-8[/yt]

Because some of you Gallican Heretics deny the dogma of Papal Infallibility, thus perilously putting your eternal souls in grave danger, I posted ten clear proofs of Papal Infallibility in another thread.

Cry me a river.

Nobody even tried to answer them.

Nobody is interested in re-treading the same old ground.

Because in fact the Catholic Faith is the true Faith, the demonstrations in favor of it are not objections that can be answered, but proofs that cannot be refuted; and that only those who fail to correspond to Grace will obstinately fight - just like the proofs of the existence of God; or the demonstrations in favor of Christ Our Lord's Miracles and Fulfilled Prophesies.

Si si, and so says every other true believer of his true religion.

Virtually every Syrian Orthodox Christian (I know several) will tell you the Council of Chalcedon dogmatized Papal Infallibility and Primacy of Jurisdiction - part of the reason they say they reject it.

I don't know this, nor do I trust a known dishonest person, nor do I care what monophysite idiots have to say.

It's only Greek Orthodox Christians, who want to accept Chalcedon but refuse Pope St. Leo the Great's clear teaching of Papal Supremacy (and the Council of Chalcedon saying "Peter has spoken thus through Leo. Anathema to him who does not thus believe"), who are inconsistent in that regard; the two choices, therefore, are to reject the Council of Chalcedon with the Syrians, or to accept the Papacy with the Catholics.

Nope.

Although because Fr. Philip at Ephesus had already confirmed the Petrine Privileges of the Papacy, saying, "It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm: your ultimate choice boils down to be this: to be mad with the Nestorians, who deny Mary is the Mother of God, or to be wise with the Catholic Church. No prizes to others for guessing which you want to choose.

Nope.

Even if you disagree with the Council of Ephesus, the value of this historical testimony still stands; "doubtful to none" and "known to all ages" that "Blessed Peter" is "the prince and head of the Apostles" and "the Column of the Faith", moreover "the foundation of the Catholic Church" and that he received from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, "the keys of the kingdom", along with "the power of binding and loosing sins" (which is jurisdiction) and that he forever "lives and judges in his Successors".

Universal jurisdiction and infalliblity of the Roman bishop? Nope.

This testimony was cited in Vatican I. It is like SO OBVIOUS that many of you have never read what you attempt to refute. The First Vatican Council cites 4 clear proofs from earlier Councils.

Nope.

Jay Dyer is welcome to attempt to debate me.

Then go onto his Discord channel and do it. He issues open invitations on Twitter.

[TheReturnofLive]

The Pope, by the very nature of its office in having unique charisms that no other bishop has, it being above all Bishops, and it being a Divinely Instituted office established by Christ Himself (unlike the Cardinals, which was established by man), must necessarily be different as a Holy Order of the Catholic Church than merely a Bishop.

Disagree. The Papacy is a permanent Office; it is not, however, a non-episcopal order. How will you answer the syllogism. If the Papacy is an order of holy orders, then it cannot be lost. But the Papacy can be lost (through resignation etc). Therefore, the Papacy is not an order.

Eh, the answer is still ambiguous, because clearly, Pope Benedict thinks that the Papacy leaves an indelible mark, which is why he walks around wearing white callling himself "Pope Emeritus."

Next, if we apply a similar standard, are Arch-Deacons, Arch-Priests, Archimandrites, Archimandrites and Archbishops also in the Orthodox Church some special kind of holy orders, by this argument? For Catholics, Archbishops and Patriarchs are Bishops with added jurisdiction.

The Pope is beyond just having added jurisdiction; he is the only direct successor to an Apostle, has universal jurisdiction, is the sole source of dogma, and is subject to no judgment by anyone, even by an Ecumenical Council, which many in the Early Church and even in the post-schism Roman Church clearly thought was the highest authority of the Church.

Fr. Bulgakov said, "If it be said that papacy is not a special order but only an office, since the pope is in bishop's orders" and that's exactly what it is. The Papacy is an episcopal see, the See of St. Peter in Rome, which is also called the Apostolic Throne by St. Athanasius and the Fathers; like the see of constantinople is an office, the See of St. Peter is an office, but has universal jurisdiction.

Nope, see above.

1. Fr. Bulgakov claims "By proclaiming papal sovereignty the council abolished itself, committed dogmatic suicide, declared its own non-existence"; but, this is contrary to Conciliar Precedent in the Early Church. The Council of Chalcedon decreed, "Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children". If, therefore, the Council of Chalcedon can faithfully recognize the Pope of Rome, as Vicar of Christ and Head of the Catholic Episcopate, without denying all the divine rights of the Episcopacy as well, then there is no contradiction in the Vatican Council doing the same. How can you understand, Live, what Chalcedon decreed - that the Roman Pontiff was begged to honor the decision of the Council by Papal assent to the definitions? "By proclaiming papal" assent as necessary, did the council of Chalcedon also "abolish itself"? Or rather, did it support itself?

2. Next, Fr. Bulgakov goes into detail about the Council of Constance; but surely Father remembers the "Robber Council" of 449, which Pope St. Leo annulled. Now, only a greater authority can annul the decision of a lower tribunal, as a Supreme court annuls the decision of a high court. Thus, the very annulment of a Robber Council and its declaration as such constitutes a patristic proof of the Pope's universal authority. Patriarch St. Flavian wrote to Pope St. Leo the Great: "Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound." How do you understand this Patriarchal declaration? How is it that a Pope could annul a Council and declare it void?

These texts can be interpreted in two ways.

1. As the Pope was legitimately the First See, universal decisions required his consent, but this was done as a matter of custom, not law.
2. As the Pope was legitimately the First See, universal decisions required his consent, and this was a requirement of canon law.

Let's even assume for the sake of argument that it's 2.

It does not follow that

A. The Pope had universal appellate jurisdiction.

Let's assume A. It doesn't follow that

B. The Pope had universal immediate jurisdiction.

Let's assume B and A, and say that this what the Early Church actually believed in. That when we read Chalcedon, we read into it A and B. It doesn't follow that

C. This means that the Pope is a divinely instituted office by Jesus Christ Himself
D. This means that the Pope is the sole, direct and literal successor of an Apostle
E. This means that the Pope is the sole source of dogma and Faith
F. That the Pope is higher than all other Church authorities, and cannot be judged by anyone
G. That the Pope's Encyclicals are immediately binding on everyone everywhere.

3. Finally, Fr. Bulgakov says, "There is no contradiction if a constituent assembly elects a monarch or a dictator and then annuls itself in submitting to him: it rightfully hands over to him the fullness of its own power,—and the sover­eignty is not interrupted"; but the Catholic Church does not teach that the Episcopacy is annulled because of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Papacy; quite the contrary, as we saw from Pope St. Gregory the Great, cited in the CE, and in the First Vatican Council, the Particular Jurisdiction of the Bishops, like the True Jurisdiction of a High Court, or the True Authority of a Commander over his Soldiers (though a General's Authority is superior to both), is by no means annulled, but rather, confirmed, strengthened, ratified. The rule of Chief Ministers is not annulled because there is a Prime Ministers. The rule of Governors is not annulled because there is a President. Rather, there is a union of all through the supreme authority of a single president, or a single Prime Minister. Do Prime Ministers annul Chief Ministers?

1. The Supreme Court, at least in the United States, is far different than the Pope's authority. The Supreme Court can only react to cases, they cannot actually create cases; they only have appellate jurisdiction on questions of Federal Law / Constitutional issues. Furthermore, they can choose which cases they want to hear by granting Certiorari; they need not to hear any cases that were brought to them.

2. No Church order has any authority outside the Pope, who is subject to no judgment. That is far different from any of the above examples; a Commander can be tried for the crimes he commits and for corruption, and a President can be impeached by the Senate.

[Kreuzritter]

These texts can be interpreted in two ways.

1. As the Pope was legitimately the First See, universal decisions required his consent, but this was done as a matter of custom, not law.
2. As the Pope was legitimately the First See, universal decisions required his consent, and this was a requirement of canon law.

Let's even assume for the sake of argument that it's 2.

It does not follow that

A. The Pope had universal appellate jurisdiction.

Let's assume A. It doesn't follow that

B. The Pope had universal immediate jurisdiction.

Let's assume B and A, and say that this what the Early Church actually believed in. That when we read Chalcedon, we read into it A and B. It doesn't follow that

C. This means that the Pope is a divinely instituted office by Jesus Christ Himself
D. This means that the Pope is the sole, direct and literal successor of an Apostle
E. This means that the Pope is the sole source of dogma and Faith
F. That the Pope is higher than all other Church authorities, and cannot be judged by anyone
G. That the Pope's Encyclicals are immediately binding on everyone everywhere.

Which just goes to show how totally insane theology became. It's clear as daylight that Roman thought, law and power structures were superimposed onto the Apostolic religion and slowly transformed into a beast. If anyone thinks Roman jurisprudence was taught by Jesus to the Apostles, let him be anathema.

[TheReturnofLive]

These texts can be interpreted in two ways.

1. As the Pope was legitimately the First See, universal decisions required his consent, but this was done as a matter of custom, not law.
2. As the Pope was legitimately the First See, universal decisions required his consent, and this was a requirement of canon law.

Let's even assume for the sake of argument that it's 2.

It does not follow that

A. The Pope had universal appellate jurisdiction.

Let's assume A. It doesn't follow that

B. The Pope had universal immediate jurisdiction.

Let's assume B and A, and say that this what the Early Church actually believed in. That when we read Chalcedon, we read into it A and B. It doesn't follow that

C. This means that the Pope is a divinely instituted office by Jesus Christ Himself
D. This means that the Pope is the sole, direct and literal successor of an Apostle
E. This means that the Pope is the sole source of dogma and Faith
F. That the Pope is higher than all other Church authorities, and cannot be judged by anyone
G. That the Pope's Encyclicals are immediately binding on everyone everywhere.

Which just goes to show how totally insane theology became. It's clear as daylight that Roman thought, law and power structures were superimposed onto the Apostolic religion and slowly transformed into a beast. If anyone thinks Roman jurisprudence was taught by Jesus to the Apostles, let him be anathema.

If you want to be perfectly honest, law and power structures were imposed on the Apostolic Religion at the time of Constantine, for better or for worse. Every Ecumenical Council in the Pre-Schism Church after Nicaea became the binding law of the land. Everytime a heretic seized the throne of the Emperor, things got bad for those who were orthodox, which is why Arianism was recognized as one of the worst crises of the Church; the Arians became the government and were able to legally persecute the Nicaean Christians. The non-Chalcedonians after Chalcedon were heavily persecuted by the government after Chalcedon; One of the Coptic Saints, Saint Samuel the Confessor, refused to sign Chalcedon, and because of that, one of the Byzantine soldiers pinned him up against a wall and struck him so brutally that he struck out his eye. When the Muslims actually conquered Egypt from Byzantium, while the Coptics were still persecuted, they weren't persecuted nearly as harshly as the Byzantine government did.

Every Church that can trace itself to the Apostolic Church by the time of Constantine has - at least technically speaking - the theology of

1. How religious liberty is a heresy; the state has every right to promote the True Faith and destroy other religions
2. How Monarchy is the True, God-promoting government
3. How Churches should cooperate with the state to promote the Faith, and to censor and destroy heresy.
4. Sophistic "Old Testament parallelism" arguments justifying a gross abuse of Church power that was unknown to the Apostles.

If one were to study the primitive Church under the Byzantine Empire from a historical perspective, you will easily see parallels with how the Church functioned and how the Church served as a metanarrative for the legitimization of each government with

1. The Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe and Eastern Europe
2. The Russian Orthodox Church in the Russian Empire
3. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the Ethiopian Empire

And you will see parallels with each other.


I don't think Protestantism is a viable answer, as Anglicanism has all the problems as the above Churches (in addition to it being a "nothing" religion, because there is no truly consistent dogmatic theology), as did Lutheranism (which has the same problems as Anglicanism; it's a nothing religion other than "Sola Fide" and "Sola Scriptura").

Sola Scriptura is foolish, because in addition to it being circular, the Bible alone isn't sufficient for spiritual guidance; one cannot rely solely and exclusively on a book to give answers to all the circumstances in one's life, especially one which is thousands of years removed from our own; especially one as elusive and contested as the Bible. It's why we have the Supreme Court, because as simple as the Constitution is, circumstances arise which need someone who is educated to interpret it properly and keep in the spirit of the Constitution.

[TheReturnofLive]

It's for this reason why I'm an "unsure, Apostolic, Liturgical Christian," because as of now, I think I've become more convinced of the Anglican Branch theory (with the exception of the Anglicans which are far removed from Apostolic Tradition, if not the Anglicans totally), that in reality, that either there is no absolutely perfect Apostolic Church, or if there is, it matters little in the grand scheme of things; those who have Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders have been able to retain authentic Christian ethos, morality, and spirituality, and the necessary fundamentals of the Faith.

I know that none of the Apostolic Churches hold to such a theory, even Vatican II doesn't. But it's the one that makes the most sense to me. As someone who has been to Oriental Orthodox Churches, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Traditional Catholic Churches (Anglican Ordinariate, SSPX, and FSSP / Diocesan Latin Masses), I've found incredibly similar spirituality, prayer life, devotions, and sermons that are so close that I find it incredibly hard to believe that such a thing is merely a coincidence. They clearly deviate from each other to a small degree, but not as much as each denomination likes to lead on. They all speak to a spirituality to me that is far removed than the banal and hedonic spiritualities that Protestant communities promote via emotionalism, wanting to get superpowers, or talk to Jesus like he's your imaginary grade-school friend; something that I've truly experienced that's incomprehensible to put into words, that works with but is not identical with the liturgical spiritualities of these groups, as much as the reprobate I am.

Nor do I think that each communion has fully retained the Holy Spirit; in every communion, there is always at least one apostate community and one cult-like community, and unfortunately for Rome, that has happened way more than the others. I think many Roman Catholic Churches, many Oriental Orthodox (ESPECIALLY COPTIC AND SYRIAC) Churches, and some Eastern Orthodox Churches have the Spirit of Lawlessness directing their Priest, or worse, their bishop, and therefore, their community.

Many can interpret that in light of Traditional Catholic teaching via valid Apostolic Succession and each liturgy being truly Catholic, but I find it hard to believe that something so identical can really indicate one is a parish of damnation / sacrilege and one is a parish that is all going to Heaven.

That's in addition to the fact that I think it would be incredibly cruel of God to make it logically impossible to find the True Faith, and sentence those to hell because they tried their best in their Faith but "lol they picked the cup that didn't have the ball under it, and I programmed them with bias towards the wrong cup."

[abc123]

It's for this reason why I'm an "unsure, Apostolic, Liturgical Christian," because as of now, I think I've become more convinced of the Anglican Branch theory.

This is more or less the position I have come to adopt, the branch theory that is. I no longer believe any one ecclesiastical group has exclusive claim on truth or authority.

As for Anglicanism, I adopted Anglican practice since I believe it keeps the best of the Catholic West without the historical and theological baggage. I'm not trying to convert anyone to Anglicanism but its where I am.

The church I attend is a rare gem in the U.S Anglican scene. We use the 1928 BCP and have a very Anglo-Catholic liturgical life. The Gospel is preached and we are edified.

Less important perhaps is that my church is a gorgeous structure that elicits thoughts of Medieval England complete with a rood screen. If a Catholic wandered in they would probably think they were in a Catholic church, except that our liturgy is much more reverent than most Roman masses these days.

[Xavier]

... Pope Emeritus.

Pope Emeritus doesn't mean the Papacy leaves an indelible Mark. There are Archbishops and Bishops Emeritus. It just means one has resigned one's office. If there was one single holy order for the Papacy, and it could be held only by one person at one time, there could be no Pope Emeritus alongside a reigning Pope - for then only one of them would hold the order. But there is. Q.E.D. The Papacy is an office.

The Pope is beyond just having added jurisdiction; he is the only direct successor to an Apostle,

Disagree. The Bishop of Jerusalem is the Successor of St. James the Apostle; as the Pope as Bishop of Rome is Successor of St. Peter.

The Bishop of Rome inherits the authority that God willed to give to St. Peter; the other Bishops inherit the authority of the other Apostles. That is all. Order or Sacramental Character is one thing, and it is sometimes called the material element of Apostolic Succession. Jurisdiction or Authority is another; it is like the Supernatural Form that vivifies the Character. And it is called the formal element of Apostolic Succession. All Catholic Bishops have a true and proper ordinary authority. Only schismatic bishops lose out on it.

What happened to Patriarch Dioscorus when he was excommunicated by Pope and Council? Did he lose out on orders? No, jurisdiction.

has universal jurisdiction, is the sole source of dogma, and is subject to no judgment by anyone, even by an Ecumenical Council, which many in the Early Church and even in the post-schism Roman Church clearly thought was the highest authority of the Church.

Catholic Historian Philip Hughes: "No member of the Church has ever proposed that a General Council shall be summoned and the pope be left out, nor that the pope should take any other position at the General Council but as its president...in no council has it been moved that the Bishop of X be promoted to the place of the Bishop of Rome, or that the bishop of Rome's views be disregarded and held of no more account than those of the bishop of any other major see...the general shape is ever discernible of a Roman Primacy universally recognized, and submitted to, albeit (at times) unwillingly -- recognized and submitted to because, so the bishops believed, it was set up by God himself." http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia: "History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes....The tone of authority [in his Epistle to the Corinthians] which inspires the latter appears so clearly that [Protestant scholar J.B.] Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as 'the first step towards papal domination' ...Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head....The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles." (volume 12, article "Pope" page 263, 264)

As the Pope was legitimately the First See, universal decisions required his consent, and this was a requirement of canon law.

It can also be interpreted in a third way.

3. As the Pope was the universal authority, and local Councils of Bishops were true authorities, but only local ones; so also a local Council of Bishops is truly authoritative but only attained Universal or Ecumenical authority when the Pope makes it Universal.

In those days when Constantinople remained Catholic, there are ample and numberless testimonies to this from its Saints; even its Patriarchs. For e.g. Patriarch St. Nicephorus: "Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30])." https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

What has happened in the Eastern Churches is revisionism with respect to the Papacy's authority. If you go through the entire first millenium of Church History, and take those 3 propositions as hypotheses to be confirmed; put a check mark whenever some piece of evidence is compatible with 1 or 2, and which is only compatible with 3. Sooner or later, you'll see that 3 is the true verified hypothesis.

Finally, what of the Canons of Sardica? Are they also only custom or canon law? The Pope alone had the right to appoint judges to retry. And this because of the Apostle St. Peter. Patriarch St. Athanasius himself had frequent recourse to this right, under his friend Pope St. Julius I.

Edit - RE: Branch Theory - if you believe in Branch Theory, by Paschal's Wager, you should be Catholic. For separated Christians admit Catholic Christians can be saved, but Catholic Christians deny those knowingly separated from the Catholic Church, like those who've become Catholic and then lapsed, can be saved. Thus, you have everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by being non-Catholic. Also, you should support the re-union of branches with the Catholic "Branch". There is an authentic Branch Theory, but only within the Catholic Church. Sure, there is English Christianity, French Christianity, German Christianity, Hong Kong Christianity and Indian Christianity, but all must believe the same dogmas, as taught in any Catechism, and all must be in communion with Church Shepherds. Separated Christians, even in good faith, who discern that Branch Theory is untenable and a watering down of Apostolic and Catholic Christianity as it was known for over a 1000 years when all Catholic Christendom was happily united, should make haste to return to Rome.

[Xavier]

You know what the Orthodox answer, right or wrong, to them is ...

There's no such thing as a single Orthodox answer. There are Orthodox Christians today who believe in an appellate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, such as is recognized by the Canons of the Council of Sardica. I know this because I have actually dialogued with the Orthodox and tried to understand their perspective as fellow Christians as much as possible; even if I don't agree with them on everything.

You give no indication of having done anything like that yourself. But simply in your anti-Catholic fury, latch on to anything you think you can use against the Papacy. After enlisting all the Popes of the first two Christian centuries, Protestant Historian Philip Schaff, a reasonable, balanced, fair and eminent historian, openly admits, "It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church)"

As for the entire controversy, I refer you here

Quote the excerpt you think is relevant. I read your first link. Ubi Petrus said this: "In fact, St. Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople who tried and condemned Eutyches in Constantinople in 448 and was beaten nearly to death at Ephesus (he died shortly thereafter) says the same thing ..." The issue is precisely who was right between Eutyches and St. Flavian, and how the Church would judge between them. The Church judged between them through a definitive declaration of Pope St. Leo the Great, who declared that Patriarch St. Flavian was right. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, on reading and receiving the text, acclaimed Peter had spoken through Leo; they said they were obedient to His Holiness the Pope, and then they begged him to Confirm the Conciliar decisions by his assent. The next Patriarch of Constantinople Anatolius further confirmed all this when he said " "Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness." "UbiPetrus" makes no mention of all this there. It doesn't fit the narrative.

Universal jurisdiction and infalliblity of the Roman bishop? Nope.

Yes, Universal Jurisdiction; because the Pope has the right to pronounce judgments between Patriarchs, including between Patriarch St. Cyril and Patriarch Nestorius. Approve one and rebuke the other. What follows from that? That a Pope has jurisdiction over Patriarchs.

St. Peter's authority was absolute and universal, by Divine Will; "Whatever you bind on Earth, it shall be bound on Heaven". Note, "whatever". And "on Earth". Not, only a few things; nor even, in a particular place only. What you oppose is the Lord's commandment.

Then go onto his Discord channel and do it.

Hmm. I'll consider it. In the meanwhile, the authorities stand.

Edit: Two top comments on your video: "Glad I found this channel. I am an EO considering Catholicism. Jay unfortunately acted very immature here and somewhat ruined the video. I am very interested in watching more content from Erick now, as I had never seen him before. Erick seems extremely well informed and rational."

And "Jay is out of control and nonsensical  im very disappointed slinging insults very sad"

Thanks, Jay; you're a Great Ambassador - for the Catholic Cause -  with your anti-Catholicism. Almost as good as Erick Ybarra, who is also very good, by God's Grace, for the Catholic Cause. The Catholic Religion is the Only True One and it is God's Will that all of us become or remain Catholic.

[Kreuzritter]

Quote the excerpt you think is relevant. I read your first link.

The entire corpus is relevant.

Yes, Universal Jurisdiction; because the Pope has the right to pronounce judgments between Patriarchs, including between Patriarch St. Cyril and Patriarch Nestorius. Approve one and rebuke the other. What follows from that? That a Pope has jurisdiction over Patriarchs.

Nope. A council did that.

St. Peter's authority was absolute and universal, by Divine Will; "Whatever you bind on Earth, it shall be bound on Heaven". Note, "whatever". And "on Earth". Not, only a few things; nor even, in a particular place only. What you oppose is the Lord's commandment.

Nope. Matthew 18:18. What I oppose is your tendentious interpretation of scripture.

Then go onto his Discord channel and do it.

Edit: Two top comments on your video: "Glad I found this channel. I am an EO considering Catholicism. Jay unfortunately acted very immature here and somewhat ruined the video. I am very interested in watching more content from Erick now, as I had never seen him before. Erick seems extremely well informed and rational."

And "Jay is out of control and nonsensical  im very disappointed slinging insults very sad"

Thanks, Jay; you're a Great Ambassador - for the Catholic Cause -  with your anti-Catholicism. Almost as good as Erick Ybarra, who is also very good, by God's Grace, for the Catholic Cause. The Catholic Religion is the Only True One and it is God's Will that all of us become or remain Catholic.
[/quote]

Versus the flood into Jay Dyer's side after the utter embarrassment of Erick Ybarra. This picking-and-choosing is typical of how you see the world and the tendentious nature of your interpretive method.

[TheReturnofLive]

Edit - RE: Branch Theory - if you believe in Branch Theory, by Paschal's Wager, you should be Catholic. For separated Christians admit Catholic Christians can be saved, but Catholic Christians deny those knowingly separated from the Catholic Church, like those who've become Catholic and then lapsed, can be saved. Thus, you have everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by being non-Catholic. Also, you should support the re-union of branches with the Catholic "Branch". There is an authentic Branch Theory, but only within the Catholic Church. Sure, there is English Christianity, French Christianity, German Christianity, Hong Kong Christianity and Indian Christianity, but all must believe the same dogmas, as taught in any Catechism, and all must be in communion with Church Shepherds. Separated Christians, even in good faith, who discern that Branch Theory is untenable and a watering down of Apostolic and Catholic Christianity as it was known for over a 1000 years when all Catholic Christendom was happily united, should make haste to return to Rome.

This fails for two reasons.

1. The other Apostolic Churches - the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Ancient Churches of the East - claim the exact same thing as the Catholics, as having an exclusive claim on being the True Church, so I have to "make a wager" against these other probabilities.
2. Even if I picked the right Church, and the Catholic Church - whichever communion that is - was right, my false belief would not merit me Salvation, which is why my own beliefs are throwing up my hands and saying and coming to the same result through different logical approaches, as I genuinely don't know, other than I tend to reject the ridiculous, nonsensical, and ahistorical Feeneyism.