The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) proves Papal Supremacy - for Orthodox.

[Xavier]

Sample Testimonies from the Fathers at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, from Pope St. Leo the Great (who annulled the Robber Council called "ephesus II" of 449 A.D. - an act which itself shows the supremacy of a Pope to an Episcopal Council, which Chalcedon approved), even from the erring monk Eutyches himself, and from Bishops from all sides:

1. We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. -- Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

2. When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. 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. -- Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449

3. Now the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery. -- Pope Leo, Ep 10

4. "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

5. 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. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a35.htm Is it not time for our Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters to come home to the Catholic Church at long last? "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter" asks St. Cyprian justly, "can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" Can he indeed have good hope of obtaining final perseverance and full salvation outside that Catholic Unity? One thinks not. It is more urgent than ever for the Orthodox Churches to heed the call of Our Lady of Fatima and quickly return to the Catholic Church.

When Russia is Consecrated
The Stirring in Russian Hearts
Sunday, August 17th, 2014

Mary: http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-17/2-the-stirring-in-russian-hearts

When Russia is consecrated to my Immaculate Heart, there will be a stirring in the hearts of all, but especially in the souls of the Russian people. They will receive an inner light and will understand what forces of evil were planted in their nation by Satan's instruments.

As their hearts are stirred, more and more light will fill them. They will reject both what has been forced upon them and what, to some degree, they themselves have chosen. All of these evils have formed their nation and their leaders into instruments of darkness, death and destruction. In this new stirring, they will fully reject what they have become and what they had been forced to accept.

This stirring will grow greater as it manifests itself in outward demonstrations of a growing desire to return to its religious roots and, especially, to return to their devotion of my Immaculate Heart.

No one will be able to stop this movement because their nation will have been specifically consecrated by the Holy Father and by all the Catholic bishops of the world. I have put my seal of promise upon this act of Consecration, and the graces flowing from it will not be turned back. Even though the most frightful opposition will arise, the stirring in the hearts of the Russian people for this new light will not be turned back.

When Russia is Consecrated
The Overcoming of Separation
Monday, August 18th, 2014

Mary: http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

I will place such great gifts in the hearts of the Russian people that they will not be satisfied with superficial changes. Instead, they will wipe away the divisions of the centuries.

They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world.

They will begin to question why they are separated from the Holy Father. Would all of this darkness have fallen if there had been no division? They will cry out for unity with Rome. This ocean will be so deep and so powerful that it will sweep away all opposition. The Russian people will overturn the centuries of division that have been forced upon them.

That is why the Holy Father and all the bishops must make this Consecration in a public way and must specifically mention Russia. The Russian people must know the source of the gift. This is also why I wait and wait, even though the Holy Father delays. I must have the Holy Father act in the name of the Catholic Church so the Russian people know that the Catholic Church has released this gift. In this way, they will desire and bring about union with the Catholic Church.

I unfold these revelations so all the world, especially the Church, can see what I intend and why I ask what I do.

[TheReturnofLive]

If you were really intent on trying to argue Papal Supremacy using Chalcedon you should've brought up the fact that the Papal Legate says in the Minutes of Chalcedon that "it is clearly pointless to read out the proceedings there...the proceedings there (Ephesus 449) have been made null by the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome," rather than the ad-nausiam platitudes of connecting Saint Peter to Rome and Rome being Orthodoxy- the former no Orthodox person denies that there is some connection, considering he was martyred there, the latter nobody denies in the Chalcedonian communion that Leo was Orthodox. That would be a better point of argument.

I think what would be more significant though is what the Minutes of Chalcedon actually say in regards to how the Fathers received the Tome of Leo. The Fathers, when it was received, analyzed it with severe scrutiny and had a lot of debate with it (especially due to the fact that the Greek version of the Tome used Nestorian terminology to explain Christology), and they finally declared after fierce debate and discussion "Peter has spoken through Leo! So also taught Cyril! Everlasting memory to Cyril. Leo taught as Cyril has, anathema to those who don't believe!"

The Chalcedonian Fathers didn't just receive a dogmatic declaration from Rome and accept it without a second thought - they seriously scrutinized it, which shows they didn't believe that Orthodoxy was defined by Rome, but rather, Rome was defined by Orthodoxy - the Orthodoxy which Saint Cyril preached.

We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome.

This is not a reference to a Vatican I style Ecclesiology, but rather to Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons - said Apostolic Canon which completely rips apart the idea that the first of the Bishops in of itself needs not anything or anybody for it's own authority or legitimacy.

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. 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.

Rome was often the go-to place for Orthodoxy, because Rome was often divorced from the theological controversies which happened in the East. Flavian, whose life was being threatened due to him forcing Eutyches to confess two natures (a fear well founded, because after Ephesus 449, the guards would treat him so harshly that he would die from the wounds), was imploring Leo for help.

Now the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery.

Nobody doubts that Peter was the first one to receive the Apostolic Faith, and through Peter the rest of the Faith would flow to the rest of the Apostles. It's the false dichotomy which the Orthodox reject that Faith = Peter, and Peter = Rome, therefore Faith = Rome. The second premise is not true in that, for some reason, the Apostle Peter suddenly transferred himself to Bishop of Rome (having himself ordained a Bishop of Rome after Saint Paul ordained a Bishop of Rome before him, according to the Apostolic Constitutions), and now, all the Bishops of Rome suddenly have the role of the Apostle Peter.

Need I remind you of the fact that Saint Peter found other Apostolic Sees which were recognized even by the later Pope Saint Gregory the Great? What makes Rome more special than Antioch and Alexandria, which were both founded by Peter (the former directly, the latter indirectly)?

From Book VII, Epistle 40

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21. Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you, I declare to you that I exult with great joy from knowing that you labour assiduously against the barkings of heretics; and I implore Almighty God that He would aid your Blessedness with His protection, so as through your tongue to uproot every root of bitterness from the bosom of holy Church, lest it should germinate again to the hindrance of many, and through it many should be defiled. For having received your talent you think on the injunction, Trade till I come Luke 19:13. I therefore, though unable to trade at all nevertheless rejoice with you in the gains of your trade, inasmuch as I know this, that if operation does not make me partaker, yet charity does make me a partaker in your labour. For I reckon that the good of a neighbour is common to one that stands idle, if he knows how to rejoice in common in the doings of the other."

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.

How does this prove Papal authority again? Cyril anathematized Nestorius during the Council of Ephesus without the Papal Legates even there, and he had legitimate authority to do so. Orthodox Bishops can anathematize heretics, that's just how it is.

[TheReturnofLive]

Look at the crisis today.

Why hasn't Cardinal Burke issued an anathema against Fr. James Martin for heresy? Why hasn't Cardinal Sarah issued an anathema against Cupich?

When we look in the past, we see it very clearly that Flavian - who was the BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE held a synod without the Pope and condemned Eutyches - A PRIEST UNDER ALEXANDRIA'S JURISDICTION - for heresy, and years before, Saint Cyril - THE BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA held a Council without the Papal Legates there and anathematized Nestorius - the BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

So...why can't Cardinal Burke do such a thing? Or Cardinal Sarah?
Both are clearly already persecuted for apposing moral apostasy, so why not formally excommunicate the more influential heretics?


Maybe it's because they can't, due to the fact that such judgments wouldn't be allowed without the Pope, which shows undoubtedly that the Ecclesiology has changed from what it was in the Early Church.

[Kreuzritter]

If you were really intent on trying to argue Papal Supremacy using Chalcedon you should've brought up the fact that the Papal Legate says in the Minutes of Chalcedon that "it is clearly pointless to read out the proceedings there...the proceedings there (Ephesus 449) have been made null by the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome," rather than the ad-nausiam platitudes of connecting Saint Peter to Rome and Rome being Orthodoxy- the former no Orthodox person denies that there is some connection, considering he was martyred there, the latter nobody denies in the Chalcedonian communion that Leo was Orthodox. That would be a better point of argument.

& this

Need I remind you of the fact that Saint Peter found other Apostolic Sees which were recognized even by the later Pope Saint Gregory the Great? What makes Rome more special than Antioch and Alexandria, which were both founded by Peter (the former directly, the latter indirectly)?

1. We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. -- Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see can refer only to the living Pope. That's not a mere connection of Peter to Rome; it's not even connection of the Pope to Peter by succession; it is calling the Pope Peter, living and presiding, and moreover, in his own see, so Peter's primacy being accepted, it points to the unending and untransferable nature of the Bishop of Rome's primacy.

But let's go further to to decisively address your question with empirical fact:

Patriarchs of Antioch
Apostle Peter
Evodius (c. 53–c. 69)

Peter was martyred in 64 AD. Therefore Evodius became Patriarch of Antioch while Peter was yet alive and Patriarch of Rome. Similarly for Alexandria, St. Mark became its patriarch in 43 AD.

That  is why only Rome can be Peter's see, and Linus Peter's successor in primacy.

[Maximilian]

the Apostle Peter suddenly transferred himself to Bishop of Rome (having himself ordained a Bishop of Rome after Saint Paul ordained a Bishop of Rome before him, according to the Apostolic Constitutions), and now, all the Bishops of Rome suddenly have the role of the Apostle Peter.

I've never heard this before. Is there further information you could provide?

[John Lamb]

Look at the crisis today.

Why hasn't Cardinal Burke issued an anathema against Fr. James Martin for heresy? Why hasn't Cardinal Sarah issued an anathema against Cupich?

When we look in the past, we see it very clearly that Flavian - who was the BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE held a synod without the Pope and condemned Eutyches - A PRIEST UNDER ALEXANDRIA'S JURISDICTION - for heresy, and years before, Saint Cyril - THE BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA held a Council without the Papal Legates there and anathematized Nestorius - the BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

So...why can't Cardinal Burke do such a thing? Or Cardinal Sarah?
Both are clearly already persecuted for apposing moral apostasy, so why not formally excommunicate the more influential heretics?


Maybe it's because they can't, due to the fact that such judgments wouldn't be allowed without the Pope, which shows undoubtedly that the Ecclesiology has changed from what it was in the Early Church.

I think this may be a case where modern technology and means of communication has changed the way that the law is applied, not that the laws themselves have been changed. In the ancient world communications were a lot slower so it was more incumbent on local bishops and patriarchs to issue anathemas without papal ratification. It's not that they were acting without the pope, it's more that they were acting in his place or on his behalf with his being remote.

[TheReturnofLive]

the Apostle Peter suddenly transferred himself to Bishop of Rome (having himself ordained a Bishop of Rome after Saint Paul ordained a Bishop of Rome before him, according to the Apostolic Constitutions), and now, all the Bishops of Rome suddenly have the role of the Apostle Peter.

I've never heard this before. Is there further information you could provide?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm
Section 4.

Now, although this text wasn't - according to scholarly consensus - written by the Apostles themselves, the fact that the Church saw this document as a source of Tradition speaks volumes to Papal Supremacy.

[Xavier]

"it is clearly pointless to read out the proceedings there...the proceedings there (Ephesus 449) have been made null by the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome"

Yes, I could have pointed out to that. Sometimes, there's just so much evidence, one does not know where to start

the former no Orthodox person denies that there is some connection

Ok, but the Fathers do not just say "there is some connection". Right from the Apostolic age, as appears under Pope St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch itself (who calls the Church of Rome the "Church which presides over the brotherhood in love"), St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Patriarch St. Athanasius at the Council of Sardica - the Fathers point to the juridical primacy of the Roman Church to definitively determine disputed questions, and also as the necessary centre of Catholic Unity. No Father or Doctor ever told us, "you can separate indefinitely from the Chair of Peter in Rome". Schismatic sects like the Donatists did that. How did St. Augustine and St. Optatus answer that? "Is the Church among the Catholics or the Donatists" they asked and this is the answer: "You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68" http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2 The Fathers use strong language, but the doctrine they teach is clear.

This [St. Peter Chrysologus' statement to Eutyches'] is not a reference to a Vatican I style Ecclesiology but rather to Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons

Is it really? We can accept Canon 34, and in fact Catholic Bishops do decide things together with the Pope. Will the Orthodox Bishops follow "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent" with respect to the Pope? St. Peter Chrysologus' statement is more along the lines of Fr. Philip's, Papal legate at Ephesus I, "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 Eutyches totally erred, and St. Flavian was right - yet there were many beside them who were not sure who was correct. Pope St. Leo's dogmatic Tome helped settle the issue and saved the day for Catholic orthodoxy.

Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria could not excommunicate Nestorius, his equal, just like that. That's why both sides appealed to Pope St. Celestine, as is mentioned in the New Advent link on the Council of Ephesus. "we being necessarily impelled thereto both by the canons [for his contumacy] and by the letter [to Cyril] of our most holy father and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears have arrived at the following grievous sentence against him: Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops."

Nobody doubts that Peter was the first one to receive the Apostolic Faith, and through Peter the rest of the Faith would flow to the rest of the Apostles.

But that's not all that Pope Leo is saying - he is saying Bishops who separate from the Pope lose their share of episcopal authority. If you want to confirm that, you can read the context of the letter here - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604010.htm "II. Hilary is disturbing the peace of the Church by his insubordination ...not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth.not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth." The Gospel evidence itself is plain, and the consistent patristic exegesis of the Petrine passages shows the universal primacy has descended in a special way to the Successors of St. Peter in Rome.

all the Bishops of Rome suddenly have the role of the Apostle Peter

If "all the Bishops" have the role of St. Peter, then St. Optatus is guilty of a false argument (!) since the Donatists had Bishops. No, it is the Bishop in the Chair of Peter who holds the fullness of the Petrine Authority. Other Catholic Bishops, in communion with him, receive the fullness of episcopal authority through him by remaining in that communion. Separated Bishops must present themselves to him.

What makes Rome more special than Antioch and Alexandria

Pope St. Damasus explained it in antiquity, and Dom Gueranger more recently: ""the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." - Council of Rome, 382 A.D. The two Catholic Patriarchs of these sees depended on the Pope and decided matters jointly in union with him - not against him or apart from him.

For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years.

Fr. Gueranger explains, "How sacred, how divine, is this authority of the keys, which is ?rst given by heaven itself to the Roman Pontiff'; then is delegated by him to the prelates of the Church; and thus guides and blesses the whole Christian world! The apostolic see has varied its mode of transmitting such an authority according to the circumstances of the several ages; but the one source of the whole power was always the same, the chair of Peter. We have already seen how, at the commencement, there were three chairs: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; and all three were sources of the canonical institution of the bishops of their respective provinces; but they were all three chairs of Peter ... But of these three chairs, the Pontiff of Rome had his authority and his institution from heaven; whereas, the two other patriarchs could not exercise their rights, until they were recognized and con?rmed by him who was Peter's successor, as vicar of Christ. Later on, two other sees were added to these ?rst three: but it was only by the consent of the Roman Pontiff that Constantinople and Jerusalem obtained such an honour." https://catholic4lifeblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/the-chair-of-st-peter-at-antioch-mass-propers/

As for Pope St. Gregory the Great, you know, I'm sure, that (like Pope St. Leo who expresses a similar sentiment above - authority is only needed if there is contumacy on some side, otherwise all Bishops can happily remain in peace and unity without need of sentences) Pope St. Gregory takes for granted that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Apostolic See - "Thus he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12)." - New Advent How does this square with the idea that the Bishop of Constantinople has the same jurisdiction as the Successor of St. Peter in Rome?

This Apostolic right of the Church of Rome was universally recognized by the Church for several centuries and the Saints and Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves are among the best witnesses, "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])." - Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople.

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - St. Theodore of Constantinople. https://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

We have seen before in Orthodox Priest's Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, https://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611 these and many other statements from leaders of Constantinople and other Churches attesting to Roman Primacy. You can find excerpts on Google Books. It would be wonderful if the Churches resolve to work together for Unity. God bless.

[TheReturnofLive]

Xavier, how long are we going to dance this dance?

the former no Orthodox person denies that there is some connection

Ok, but the Fathers do not just say "there is some connection". Right from the Apostolic age, as appears under Pope St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch itself (who calls the Church of Rome the "Church which presides over the brotherhood in love"), St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Patriarch St. Athanasius at the Council of Sardica - the Fathers point to the juridical primacy of the Roman Church to definitively determine disputed questions, and also as the necessary centre of Catholic Unity. No Father or Doctor ever told us, "you can separate indefinitely from the Chair of Peter in Rome". Schismatic sects like the Donatists did that. How did St. Augustine and St. Optatus answer that? "Is the Church among the Catholics or the Donatists" they asked and this is the answer: "You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68" http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2 The Fathers use strong language, but the doctrine they teach is clear.

Except Saint Irenaeus strictly rebuked Pope Victor for schism with the Church of Polycrates over them following the Jewish Calendar, and the Pope was  rebuked by pretty much the whole Church until he decided to back down, with the issue being decided at Nicaea.

As Eusebius recalls:
"But his was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbors. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was responsible in Gaul."

You know what, Anglicans have Bishops too - but guess what, their churches weren't founded by the Apostles and have no connection whatsoever to the Apostles and their doctrine. That's the argument that Saint Optatus is doing in appealing to Rome, considering Rome was the only Apostolic Church in Western Europe that was close to North Africa, with the Pope being the head Bishop of the Roman Church.

And actually, contra your claim, Saint Augustine in his 75 Chapters against the Donatists NOT ONCE used an appeal to Rome in arguing against Donatists. As a matter of fact, Saint Augustine rather explicitly says elsewhere that people can appeal to a General Council over Rome.

From Epistle 43: "Supposing those bishops at Rome were not good judges, there remained a plenary Council of the Catholic Church where the cause could be sifted with the judges themselves, so that if they were convicted of having judged wrongly their sentence could be annulled."

Also, I find this point laughable considering your with a group of people that reject what the Pope has declared in the 1960s, and are not in communion with Rome officially as such.

Real adherence to the "Chair of Peter," huh Xavier?

You're nothing more than what I am - someone who has left Rome because it's nothing more than a rotting corpse now.

This [St. Peter Chrysologus' statement to Eutyches'] is not a reference to a Vatican I style Ecclesiology but rather to Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons

Is it really? We can accept Canon 34, and in fact Catholic Bishops do decide things together with the Pope. Will the Orthodox Bishops follow "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent" with respect to the Pope? St. Peter Chrysologus' statement is more along the lines of Fr. Philip's, Papal legate at Ephesus I, "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 Eutyches totally erred, and St. Flavian was right - yet there were many beside them who were not sure who was correct. Pope St. Leo's dogmatic Tome helped settle the issue and saved the day for Catholic orthodoxy.

Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria could not excommunicate Nestorius, his equal, just like that. That's why both sides appealed to Pope St. Celestine, as is mentioned in the New Advent link on the Council of Ephesus. "we being necessarily impelled thereto both by the canons [for his contumacy] and by the letter [to Cyril] of our most holy father and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears have arrived at the following grievous sentence against him: Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops."

The Orthodox did follow that principle, because every other Church - Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, - excommunicated Rome for claiming Papal Supremacy.

So, on the next thing, which - thanks for bringing in evidence against your point.

The Pope formerly condemned Nestorius for heresy three months before the Council of Ephesus, yet the Council judged Nestorius like he was a Bishop in good canonical standing. Why? Certainly a Pope's dogmatic judgment would have been final?

And Nestorius certainly knew, receiving the Pope's judgment which was written to Nestorius on August 11, 430.

Considering that a Pope's dogmatic judgement is final, why was it necessary to start an entire Ecumenical Council that involved summoning all the Bishops possible, getting everybody together, setting up a location of meeting, and days of fierce debate, in the East?

Also, Cyril started the Council before the Papal Legates arrived and before the Antiochians arrived, as a sly political maneuver to make sure he would win. After the Council of Ephesus, the Antiochians held their own council where they excommunicated Cyril, and they both (Alexandria and Antioch) appealed to the Emperor who decided that Cyril was correct, making it the law. The schism wouldn't heal until the Reunion of Cyril and John of Antioch, where the formula "two natures" was allowed as long as there was an understanding of "one hypostasis of the Word" and a "hypostatic union."

Nobody doubts that Peter was the first one to receive the Apostolic Faith, and through Peter the rest of the Faith would flow to the rest of the Apostles.

But that's not all that Pope Leo is saying - he is saying Bishops who separate from the Pope lose their share of episcopal authority. If you want to confirm that, you can read the context of the letter here - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604010.htm "II. Hilary is disturbing the peace of the Church by his insubordination ...not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth.not only was the power of loosing and binding given to Peter before the others, but also to Peter more especially was entrusted the care of feeding the sheep. Yet any one who holds that the headship must be denied to Peter, cannot really diminish his dignity: but is puffed up with the breath of his pride, and plunges himself into the lowest depth." The Gospel evidence itself is plain, and the consistent patristic exegesis of the Petrine passages shows the universal primacy has descended in a special way to the Successors of St. Peter in Rome.

Are these bishops outside of Rome's jurisdiction?

all the Bishops of Rome suddenly have the role of the Apostle Peter

If "all the Bishops" have the role of St. Peter, then St. Optatus is guilty of a false argument (!) since the Donatists had Bishops. No, it is the Bishop in the Chair of Peter who holds the fullness of the Petrine Authority. Other Catholic Bishops, in communion with him, receive the fullness of episcopal authority through him by remaining in that communion. Separated Bishops must present themselves to him.

Again, as I've said, Anglicans have Bishops. Why are they not legitimate? They have no connection to the Apostles or the Church they founded at Pentecost.

For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years.

Fr. Gueranger explains, "How sacred, how divine, is this authority of the keys, which is ?rst given by heaven itself to the Roman Pontiff'; then is delegated by him to the prelates of the Church; and thus guides and blesses the whole Christian world! The apostolic see has varied its mode of transmitting such an authority according to the circumstances of the several ages; but the one source of the whole power was always the same, the chair of Peter. We have already seen how, at the commencement, there were three chairs: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; and all three were sources of the canonical institution of the bishops of their respective provinces; but they were all three chairs of Peter ... But of these three chairs, the Pontiff of Rome had his authority and his institution from heaven; whereas, the two other patriarchs could not exercise their rights, until they were recognized and con?rmed by him who was Peter's successor, as vicar of Christ. Later on, two other sees were added to these ?rst three: but it was only by the consent of the Roman Pontiff that Constantinople and Jerusalem obtained such an honour." https://catholic4lifeblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/the-chair-of-st-peter-at-antioch-mass-propers/

As for Pope St. Gregory the Great, you know, I'm sure, that (like Pope St. Leo who expresses a similar sentiment above - authority is only needed if there is contumacy on some side, otherwise all Bishops can happily remain in peace and unity without need of sentences) Pope St. Gregory takes for granted that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Apostolic See - "Thus he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12)." - New Advent How does this square with the idea that the Bishop of Constantinople has the same jurisdiction as the Successor of St. Peter in Rome?

Assuming that the verb "annulled" necessarily has only one meaning - universal jurisdiction, okay. But let's assume that he was explicitly claiming universal jurisdiction by annulling this sentence, as did Leo - given the massive piles of evidence that the Church very clearly didn't recognize Rome's claims by the fact that Popes have been excommunicated by Ecumenical Councils, Ecumenical Councils were started months after the Pope already condemned people for heresy, and the fact that Rome's apostolic lineage is demonstrably false of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome, why should this declaration be seen as legitimate?

Saint Ambrose said that people could be baptized if they were just baptized with one Person of the Trinity - something we both know is false. The Church is run by imperfect people.

We have seen before in Orthodox Priest's Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, https://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611 these and many other statements from leaders of Constantinople and other Churches attesting to Roman Primacy. You can find excerpts on Google Books. It would be wonderful if the Churches resolve to work together for Unity. God bless.

Quite honestly, no. I have no interest in unity in the slightest considering how degenerate Rome is today - you can take your theological / moral apostate Pope Francis and run with him to hell, I have no interest in running to hell with you.

"God wills a plurality of religions?" What a disgusting and blasphemous statement signed by your "Vicarius Filii Dei."

Until your Church gets it's junk together, by standing firm in liturgical and moral foundations, not promoting the speaking in tongues like a bunch of Sola Scriptura ignoramuses - we have no need for more moral apostasy in this world, so you know what, you can keep your so called unity of Peter to yourself.

If Rome fixes it's junk by actually getting a good Pope who puts down the blasphemers, I would be more than supportive in trying to fix this schism.

But until that day comes - which it likely won't (given the fact that the past 6 Popes have been apostates in some regard, and Francis is clearly "sprinkling the salt on Carthage" so to speak) I'm avoiding Rome like the plague.

Your Church declared Vatican I, so live with it's consequences.

[Xavier]

Heh. Laughable. You epitomize that same "anti-Roman prejudice" of which Orthodox Priest Fr. Alexander Schmemann here speaks, "An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of [a universal] primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local "centers of agreement" or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy . . .

It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – "presiding in agape," according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical [i.e. universal] agreement.

It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.

From The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, John Meyendorff, ed., pp. 163-164 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992) https://cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/father-schmemann-on-universal-primacy/

1. Here is that essay of Greek Orthodox Priest Fr. Afanasieff online, http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm A brief excerpt about St. Ignatius, "So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord. We are not told by Ignatius (or by Clement, either) why the Church of Rome should preside, and not some other church. To Ignatius it must have seemed self-evident, and proofs a waste of time. In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome. At the beginning of the second century, the Church of Alexandria had not yet appeared on the historical scene, but seemed to lurk in some mysterious shadow. As for the Church of Ephesus—Ignatius did indeed send them an epistle, but it does not contain the least allusion to their having any special role. The only important church after Rome was Antioch—they could have claimed leadership—but Ignatius himself attributes this role to Rome, although he is quite clear that great respect is due to his own church and to himself. It is enough to compare his epistle to the Church of Rome with the other Ignatian epistles; one immediately feels the difference of tone. In his other epistles he teaches like a doctor; but when addressing Rome, he does not venture to give any advice at all. Every line in this epistle is charged with special deference to "the church that presides in love."

2. This is St. Irenaeus: "that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of Her preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

The clear principle in both St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus is the other Churches are to be united in communion with the Roman Church. Pope St. Victor clearly had the power to excommunicate - he was urged not to do so, because these were not matters of faith. The CE explains, "St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty." The matter of unity on the date of Pascha was later settled in a different way in Nicaea. St. Irenaeus is not going against what what he himself laid down in Against Heresies. But is saying there are instances in which the Pope should be careful in exercising his authority, in things which are not matters of faith.

3. The example of Pope St. Clement of Rome even predates that of St. Damasus, St. Athanasius, St. Irenaeus and St. Ignatius, it shows also the tacit approval of the Apostles themselves: "On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
"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...." (Schaff, page 166)" http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm#HISTORY

The CE admirably comments on this epistle of Pope St. Clement to the Church of Corinth, "Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that [even Protestant scholar J.B.] Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). 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."

I will reply to the other points later. The Catholic Church will have a Holy Pope again in God's Good Time, so we're not worried. The Pope fully recognized the SSPX, so your quarrel is with him if you disagree. But as for Traditional Catholics, your response is like being with your wife when she is hale and healthy, and abandoning her at the first sign of sickness and trouble when she is not. If St. Athanasius had done that during Arianism, Mother Church would still have triumphed, but Athanasius would not be Athanasius. That will never be our way. We are in the Church for life. In good times and in bad times. God gave a special Promise to His Church built on the Rock of St. Peter. Even if the whole world tempts us to doubt and disbelieve that promise, as the Pharisees and the enemy tempted the Apostles often but especially during the crucifixion when they abandoned Him, by His Grace, we will believe His Word without wavering. That is Faith.

To seek to leave the Church is is a trap of the enemy to keep you away from the Sacraments, especially Holy Communion. You can most certainly live a holy life in the Catholic Church. That is confirmed by the Promise of Christ and the experience of Catholics, especially in Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist and in prayer every day, every hour. But leaving Her, Live, one sadly will scarcely have peace or salvation. You will be in our prayers.

[TheReturnofLive]

I will reply to the other points later. The Catholic Church will have a Holy Pope again in God's Good Time, so we're not worried. The Pope fully recognized the SSPX, so your quarrel is with him if you disagree. But as for Traditional Catholics, your response is like being with your wife when she is hale and healthy, and abandoning her at the first sign of sickness and trouble when she is not. If St. Athanasius had done that during Arianism, Mother Church would still have triumphed, but Athanasius would not be Athanasius. That will never be our way. We are in the Church for life. In good times and in bad times. God gave a special Promise to His Church built on the Rock of St. Peter. Even if the whole world tempts us to doubt and disbelieve that promise, as the Pharisees and the enemy tempted the Apostles often but especially during the crucifixion when they abandoned Him, by His Grace, we will believe His Word without wavering. That is Faith.

To seek to leave the Church is is a trap of the enemy to keep you away from the Sacraments, especially Holy Communion. You can most certainly live a holy life in the Catholic Church. That is confirmed by the Promise of Christ and the experience of Catholics, especially in Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist and in prayer every day, every hour. But leaving Her, Live, one sadly will scarcely have peace or salvation. You will be in our prayers.

If I was truly convinced of the Catholic Church's claims, I would stick with it. But I'm not, and I've already given several reasons more.

Should I bring up more, like how the Council of Constance explicitly says that the Popes must be subject to Ecumenical Councils?

But I seriously can't reconcile the facts of history with Rome's claims on several levels; it took one apologetic book by Michael Whelton to demolish much of what Rome claimed - "Two Paths."

I won't deny though that Rome's problems was definitely one of the catalysts to me questioning it, and I made my decision based on studying the 7 Ecumenical Councils and realizing that a Vatican I style ecclesiology brings in so much contradictions to what had historically happened.

And maybe you're right - I constantly tell myself that God will judge my Evangelical Grandmother (who died around this past October) with proper justice, and I can trust Him. But just the other night, I had a dream that she was slowly dying, at the state she was when her cancer was eating her up, before she had hallucinations and couldn't remember much of what was going on, but after she had lost much of her functionality and short term memory capabilities. We were looking around for some kind of Christian leader, and all we could find was an Indian Orthodox priest (weird it was that - a Malnkara Priest), and as soon as he pulled an icon of the Theotokos out, she yelled "No! I don't want that! I don't want paganism, I don't want idolatry! Get that icon away from me!", so all he did was say a very basic iconoclastic prayer, and then she died.

So who knows, at a subconscious level, I may actually be just trying to avoid Rome's problems.

But I am at a point in my life where I can't, in good conscious, if I'm being somewhat intellectually honest with myself (of course, I can't be absolutely certain in everything - did the Church change her teaching on the genderless nature of angels, given the Book of Enoch, which although non-canonical, Saint Peter and Saint Jude quote from for example?) , go to a Traditional Roman Mass. If I did, I would just recognize that I'm lying to myself and am trying to ignore where I truly think God is calling me to go - Orthodoxy.

And I'll I can do is do my best for what God wants - and if I'm wrong, I will go to hell, knowing that I tried my best, having spent two years researching this problem with the limited resources I have.

Maybe when I have more money to buy more books and study, maybe I'll find out that I'm wrong and maybe I'll return to Rome.

But right now, based on what I know of Church history, I can't in good conscience.


But Xavier, let's be honest.
You quoted Peter Chrysologos, who said "Peter gives the True Faith to those who seek it." Now, let me ask you a question - can you get the True Faith from Pope Francis? Can you get it from him personally? Can you get it from his Magisterium? Can you get it from the documents that he hasn't put his hands on?  Can you get it from the Saints that have been canonized by him?

The answer is, quite simply, no. If you cannot get the True Faith from Rome, what's the point of being in Communion with Rome.

This isn't just a case of the Bride of Christ being sick or the Bride of Christ being dressed up as a prostitute - she has, assuming that Rome is the Bride of Christ, lost her virginity - she has been deflowered by disgusting and repulsive individuals. And she is no longer pure, and you cannot get purity from her.

And it boils down to that fact logically - ignoring all the empirical evidence which contradicts a Vatican 1 Ecclesiology. If the source of Epistemological certainty is gone, disappearing off the face of the Earth, there's no point of trying to seek that Epistemological certainty (assuming such certainty is mandatory for Faith).

Well, anyways, thanks for the prayers. Maybe I'm wrong and I can only hope that God guides me to where I must go before I die, and if I'm wrong and I die, and Christ comes up to me and tells me that I deserve eternal fire for deserting Rome, I truly feel there's nothing more I could have done with where I am in my life right now with the resources I have, and I would say "You're the judge, and even though I constantly crucified You every day with deadly sins, I made my decision to leave Rome thinking I was serving You, and I will obey because You know the Truth and what's best."

[Xavier]

Ok, Live. Thanks for sharing your story and your struggles with all this. May God be with you in prayer and in study as you continue your journey. May Our Good Lord lead us all to His Love.

I've sent you a PM. I think it is sad that some Evangelicals have a false view and various misunderstandings of Catholic and Orthodox Tradition.

As Catholics and Orthodox, we share belief in Holy Mass, Divine Liturgy, Sacrifice for the departed, prayers to Saints and Angels, veneration of icons and statues, and much else. I believe, hope and pray Catholics and Orthodox will arrive at doctrinal consensus on the 2 or 3 remaining issues in our lifetime.

If you want to leave it at that, we shall. God bless.

[TheReturnofLive]