REFUTING ANOTHER ORTHODOX AND HIS COPY-PASTED ANTI-PAPACY MATERIALS, part 2

St. Peter kneeling in front of the Risen Lord after the Miracle of the Great Catch in the Sea of Galilee.

PART 1:

http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/10/refuting-another-orthodox-and-his-copy.html

Joel said...

Orthodox ecclesiology operates with a plurality in unity and a unity in plurality. For Orthodoxy there is no ‘either/or’ between the one and the many. No attempt is made, or should be made, to subordinate the many to the one (the Roman Catholic model), nor the one to the many (the Protestant model). It is both canonically and theologically correct to speak of the Church and the churches, and vice versa. This is impossible for Roman Catholic ecclesiology because of the double papal claim for universal jurisdiction and infallibility. The same must be said of the Protestant ecclesiologies, which connect the notion of the Church with denominationalism, and which make a distinction between the one and the many in terms of the invisible and the visible Church.

From an Orthodox perspective, the Church is both catholic and local, invisible and visible, one and many. To explain what lies behind this Orthodox ecclesiological unity in multiplicity, one has to deal with the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church.

It is for this reason that your teachings that in order to be a canonical church one must unite with the Pope in Rome. But sad to say, it was never a dogma nor inscribed in the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils not until 18th century. Such teaching was alien to the Church Fathers and early Christians. The Orthodox Church will not invent and did not invent such teachings that lead to schism of her members.

To go directly on your stand about the role of the Bisop of Rome, we do acknoweldge his role in the first thousand years of undivided Christianity but I do hope that you will recognized the Ecumenical Councils that bestowed and confirmed the title and role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate... learn to read the history... PRIMACY is far different from SUPREMACY... Primac was given to Rome wich was given to Constantinople afterwards... it was not decided jus by one person neither by Pseudo-Isidorian decrees nor Pseudo-Constantine donations BUT by the HOLY CHURCH

FATHERS assembled during the Ecumenical Councils (3rd and 4th), inspired by the Holy Spirit... and Rome and her legates sign it and was accepted by the entir Christian communities both East and West.

The Orthodox Church understand and knows the role of her BIshop frm the very beginning until now. The structure of our Church is the same as it was... nothing changed.

You mentioned several Church Fathers like Optatus... ahve yourad the entire proceeedings of that local council? It was address to the Donatists who were trying to claim the BIshopric of Rome and for that reason, Optatus mentioned that about St. Peter and his chair... but does not elevating Rome above the others Churches especially those Apostolic ses like Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople... read between the lines.

Please don't get just one part of the proceedngs of the councils in elevating or justifying the infalliability of the Pope and his Supremacy over his brother Bishops... can I ask you something, HOW DOES POPE BENEDICT VI AND EVEN THE LATE JOHN PAUL AND YOUR GREAT THEOLOGIANS ADDRESS THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, IS IT NOT "HIS ALL HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH" ... do you think your hieararchs are ignorant of he emaning of that title? of that role? Please... think before you speak about the Orthodox Church.

And I suggest you read these books on line... and converts the Papal Church, just to tell you that not onl one nor two theologians have come and return to the Church of the Apostles and the Martyrs...

The Papacy:
Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches

1. http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/Abbe%20Guettee/perieh.htm

WHY I CONVERTED TO THE ORTHODOX FAITH
THE DRAMATIC CONFESSION ON A HETERODOX

2. http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/isouitis1/perieh.htm

October 13, 2010 1:15 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[Orthodox ecclesiology operates with a plurality in unity and a unity in plurality.]

THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE NOT REALLY UNITED BUT EACH INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. IT IS THAT LACK OF UNITY THAT MAKES THE CALLING OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES.

[ For Orthodoxy there is no ‘either/or’ between the one and the many.]

AGAIN, THAT IS MORE PROPER FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE WE ARE TRULY UNITED IN FAITH, SACRAMENTS, LITURGY, ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSAL CODE OF LAWS AND EVEN PLANNING.

YOUR UNITY IS SUPERFICIAL. YOU CLAIM TO BE UNITED BUT IN REALITY YOU ARE NOT BECAUSE THE INDEPENDENCE IS GREATER THAN THE UNITY.

[ No attempt is made, or should be made, to subordinate the many to the one (the Roman Catholic model), nor the one to the many (the Protestant model).]

THERE IS NO SUBORDINATION ON OUR PART BECAUSE THE UNITY IS ABSOLUTE. AS A FILIPINO CATHOLIC I HAVE ALL THE EQUAL RIGHTS THAN MY ITALIAN COUNTERPARTS. TO SAY THAT THERE IS A SUBORDINATION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS DEFINITELY NOT FOUNDED ON REALITY. I SUGGEST BETTER FOR YOU TO CHECK YOUR FACTS.

[ It is both canonically and theologically correct to speak of the Church and the churches, and vice versa.]

ONCE AGAIN THIS IS TRUE FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CHURCH BECAUSE OUR CHURCH CAN SPEAK WITH ONE ACCORD WITH ONE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY EITHER BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NATIONS, THE COURTS OF LAWS AND BEFORE THE OTHER CHRISTIAN GROUPS. THE ORTHODOX CANNOT DO THAT. THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW CANNOT EVEN ACT TOGETHER AND DO NOT SEE EACH OTHER EYE TO EYE ON MANY OCCASIONS.

WE HAVE ONE UNIVERSAL CATECHISM AND A UNIFIED CANON LAW. THE ORTHODOX CANNOT DO THAT? WHY? FOR LACK OF UNITY.

[ This is impossible for Roman Catholic ecclesiology because of the double papal claim for universal jurisdiction and infallibility.]

ON THE CONTRARY THAT IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT A REALITY ALREADY. EACH OF OUR DIOCESE ARE HAVING A LIFE OF ITS OWN BUT IT HAS COMPLETE UNITY: DOCTRINAL, SACRAMENTAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, LITURGICAL, CANONICAL UNITY WITH THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ON THE OTHER HAND ARE LIKE PROTESTANTS. BUT THE DIVISION IS NOT ROOTED ON FELLOWSHIPS BUT ON RACIAL DISTINCTIONS: GREEK, SERBIAN, RUSSIAN, ROMANIAN, ETC. YOUR UNITY IS ALMOST SIMILAR WITH THE PROTESTANTS. THE UNITY OF YOUR PATRIARCHS AND BISHOPS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES THAN WITH THE UNIVERSAL UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

[ The same must be said of the Protestant ecclesiologies, which connect the notion of the Church with denominationalism,]

SUCH DOMINATIONALISM IS PRESENT IN YOUR GROUPS. THEY ARE ONLY DIFFERENTLY MADE. SO INSTEAD OF ATTRIBUTING IT TO US YOU'VE BETTER LOOK UNTO YOURSELVES BECAUSE IT FITS YOU MORE.

[ and which make a distinction between the one and the many in terms of the invisible and the visible Church.]

LIKE THE PROTESTANTS YOU ONLY HAVE THE MANY BUT YOUR HAVING 'THE ONE' IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. WITHOUT UNIFIED HEAD, WITHOUT AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, WITHOUT A UNIVERSAL SYNOD AND WITH NO OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE FINAL AND DEFINITIVE DECISIONS YOUR UNITY IS A FARCE.

[From an Orthodox perspective, the Church is both catholic and local,]

YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC. YOU ARE ONLY LOCAL. NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A HANDFUL MEMBERS IN SOME AREAS YOU CAN ALREADY CLAIM THAT YOU ARE CATHOLIC. O NO. THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES ARE VERY PAROCHIAL.

THE REAL CATHOLIC AND LOCAL IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. IT IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE WITH MUCH GREATER PRESENCE THAN YOURS AND IT IS UNIFIED THE WORLD OVER WHILE DISTINCT IN EACH LOCAL TERRITORIES.

[ invisible and visible,]

WE ARE MORE VISIBLE. AND WE ARE MORE VISIBLY UNITED. YOUR SO-CALLED UNITY IS 'INVISIBLE'... IT IS IMAGINARY. THE PROTESTANTS HAVE THE SAME DOCTRINE, THEY CALL IT 'INVISIBLE UNITY OF THE CHURCH'. HA, HA, HA... YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON.

[ one and many.]

WE ARE ONE. OUR HIERARCHY IS CLEAR AND ONE. FROM POPE DOWN AND FROM THE LAITY UP TO THE POPE. YOURS IS A MIXTURE OF VARIOUS GROUPS SO DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. WITHOUT COMMON VOICE AND CANNOT EVEN MAKE ONE FINAL AND BINDING DECISION FOR ALL.

AS REGARDS THE MANY, YOU ARE FEW IN COMPARISON WITH US. SO PLEASE STOP TALKING ON US OF THE WORLD 'MANY'.

[ To explain what lies behind this Orthodox ecclesiological unity in multiplicity, one has to deal with the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church.]

THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH IS BEING THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE BODY OF CHRIST IS ONE AND WHOLE. NOT A MERE MIXTURE OF GROUPS DISTINCT WITH RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS. IF WE WILL APPLY THAT TO THE BODY OF CHRIST, THEN THE LORD'S BODY WOULD APPEAR LIKE A FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER.

[It is for this reason that your teachings that in order to be a canonical church one must unite with the Pope in Rome.]

IT IS THE LORD WHO GAVE US THE PRINCIPLE OF ONE FLOCK AND ONE SHEPHERD. ONE LORD AND ONE LEADER TO WHOM HE ENTRUSTED THE KEYS OF HIS KINGDOM.

[ But sad to say, it was never a dogma nor inscribed in the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils not until 18th century.]

IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED BELIEF OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH WAY BACK TO THE APOSTOLIC TIMES. JUST IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AFTER THE ASCENSION PETER WAS MAKING DECISIONS ON HIS OWN ON BEHALF OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. THERE ARE DECISIONS THAT HE LET THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE DECIDE BUT HIS AUTHORITY WAS NEVER QUESTIONED NOR CHALLENGED.

[ Such teaching was alien to the Church Fathers and early Christians.]

ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE OR OF MOSCOW WHICH ARE LACKING IN AUTHORITY FROM BIBLICAL AND APOSTOLIC WITNESSES. THE CHURCH OF ROME IS WELL RESPECTED AND RECOGNIZED AS THE ONE WITH PRIMACY EVEN DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.

WE HAVE ENOUGH PROOF FOR THAT. BUT THE SO-CALLED PRIMACY OF CONSTANTINOPLE AS EQUAL WITH ROME IS THE ONE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY FOUNDATION BIBLICALLY, PATRISTICALLY AND BY SACRED TRADITION.

[ The Orthodox Church will not invent and did not invent such teachings that lead to schism of her members.]

YOU DID INVENT. THE CLAIM THAT CONSTANTINOPLE IS AT PAR WITH ROME IS A LATER INVENTION. THE SAME FOR MOSCOW.

[To go directly on your stand about the role of the Bisop of Rome, we do acknoweldge his role in the first thousand years of undivided Christianity]

OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. THE AUTHORITY OF ROME IS BESTOWED NOT BY MEN BUT BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO GAVE UNEQUALED AUTHORITY TO ST. PETER AS THE FIRST AND LEADER OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.

[ but I do hope that you will recognized the Ecumenical Councils that bestowed and confirmed the title and role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate...]

THE TITLE AND AUTHORITY OF PETER CAME FROM JESUS. THUS, THE AUTHORITY OF THE SEE OF ROME IS FROM THE LORD. THE TITLE AND ROLE OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE IS GIVEN LATER ONLY. IT WAS JUST AN HONOR GIVEN BECAUSE IT BECAME THE NEW CAPITAL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. THUS, IT ONLY RECOGNIZED ITS POLITICAL IMPORTANCE.

NOW, THAT EMPIRE IS LONG GONE. BYZANTIUM OR CONSTANTINOPLE IS DEAD POLITICALLY. IT'S SO CALLED PRIMACY IS LONG GONE. THE CHURCH OF MOSCOW IS EVEN GREATER IN INFLUENCE THAN CONSTANTINOPLE. IN FACT, IT IS CURSED. IT FELL TO ISLAM WHILE THE LORD GAVE VICTORY AFTER VICTORY TO THE WEST AGAINST ISLAMIC INVASION. THE CURSE THAT BEFALL CONSTANTINOPLE HAS NOT FALLEN ON OUR CHURCH. WHY? BECAUSE OF OUR UNITY WITH PETER.

[ learn to read the history...]

IF EVER THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL RECOGNIZED CONSTANTINOPLE, IT WAS RECOGNIZED AS SECOND TO ROME BUT NEVER EQUAL OR ABOVE TO IT. DON'T PRETEND THAT YOU KNOW HISTORY WHEN IT IS YOU WHO IS IGNORANT OF HISTORY. I CAN PULVERIZE YOU WITH PATRISTIC QUOTES PRAISING THE CHURCH OF ROME WHILE YOUR CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW ARE NEVER MENTIONED.

CONSTANTINE OR NO CONSTANTINE, ROME IS ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE IS NOTHING IN COMPARISON WITH IT.

[ PRIMACY is far different from SUPREMACY...]

AGREE. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL PRIMACY IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES. THERE IS THE PRIMACY OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW. WHAT IS THAT? IT IS LIKE A PERSON WITH TWO HEADS. THAT IS A HYDRA MONSTER.

THERE IS PRIMACY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THAT PRIMACY RESIDES IN THE SEE OF ROME. WHEN THIS SEE OF PETER SPEAKS EVEN THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH ARE LISTENING.

[ Primac was given to Rome wich was given to Constantinople afterwards...]

O NO, NO, NO... THE PRIMACY OF ROME WAS NOT GIVEN TO CONSTANTINOPLE. THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL HAS NO POWER TO TRANSFER THE DIVINE AUTHORITY THE LORD HAS GIVEN TO THE BLESSED PETER. O NO, NO, NO...

CONSTANTINOPLE WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY LESSER AND SECOND ONLY TO ROME. AND IT WAS GIVEN WHEN CONSTANTINOPLE WAS THE CENTER OF THE EMPIRE. NOW, CONSTANTINOPLE HAS LOST THAT PRESTIGE BECAUSE THE EMPIRE IS GONE.

THE EMPIRE IS GONE BUT ROME IS STILL ROME. IT IS THE ETERNAL CITY PROTECTED BY THE PROMISE OF THE DIVINE SAVIOR.THE GATE OF HELL DIDN'T PREVAIL AGAINST IT.

[ it was not decided jus by one person]

O NO, NO, NO... YOU ARE WRONG. IT WAS DECIDED BY ONE PERSON: BY SOMEONE CALLED JESUS THE CHRIST - THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

AFTER HIM, IT WAS DECIDED UPON BY ST. PETER WHEN HE OBEYED THE DIVINE COMMAND TO GO TO THE CITY OF ROME.

[ neither by Pseudo-Isidorian decrees nor Pseudo-Constantine donations]

WE DON'T NEED CONSTANTINE TO HAVE PRIMACY. EVEN BEFORE CONSTANTINE CONVERTED THE SEE OF ROME WAS ALREADY HAVING THE 'PRIMACY IN CHARITY' OVER THE OTHER CHURCHES. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS CONSTANTINOPLE WHO OWE ITS POLITICAL PRESTIGE TO CONSTANTINE. THUS, WHEN THE EMPIRE FELL, CONSTANTINOPLE BECAME A MERE SHADOW OF ITS PAST. NOW CONSTANTINOPLE IS LIKE A ROTTEN CORPSE... A SKELETON OF THE GLORY THAT HAS PASSED AWAY.

[ BUT by the HOLY CHURCH FATHERS assembled during the Ecumenical Councils (3rd and 4th),]

BUT THE CHURCH FATHERS NEVER DECLARED CONSTANTINOPLE AS EQUAL OR ABOVE THE SEE OF ROME. NEVER... NEVER EVER. ROME IS FIRST AND ABOVE OVER CONSTANTINOPLE. THAT IS WHAT THE HOLY MOTHER CHURCH FATHERS HAVE DECIDED.

[ inspired by the Holy Spirit...]

THE HOLY SPIRIT RECOGNIZED THE PRIMACY OF PETER OVER THE OTHER APOSTLES. RIGHT AFTER THE PENTECOST WHEN HE DESCENDED IT WAS PETER WHOM HE CHOSE TO BE THE LEADER OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, THE VOICE AND THE LEADER OF THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE. OTHERWISE THE HOLY SPIRIT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PETER TO SHUT UP AND GAVE WAY TO JAMES OR ANDREW. O NO, NO, NO... THE HOLY SPIRIT PREFERRED PETER.

WHEN PETER HAS SPOKEN THE CASE IS FINISHED. ALL OTHER APOSTLES WERE SILENT THEN. NOBODY WOULD DARE TO OPPOSE THE BLESSED PETER - THE BEARER OF THE KEYS GIVEN BY THE DIVINE MASTER.

WHERE DID THE HOLY SPIRIT DECLARE THAT CONSTANTINOPLE IS EQUAL WITH ROME? WHERE?

[ and Rome and her legates sign it and was accepted by the entir Christian communities both East and West.]

YES, IT BECAME AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL BECAUSE ROME SIGNED IT. IF ROME DIDN'T SIGN IT THEN IT WOULD NOT BE AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. TRY TO TELL YOUR PATRIARCH NOW TO CALL AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND YOU WILL SEE HOW HE WILL BE OBEYED BY ALL OTHERS.

[The Orthodox Church understand and knows the role of her BIshop frm the very beginning until now. The structure of our Church is the same as it was... nothing changed.]

REALLY? O NO, IT ISN'T. IT IS NO LONGER IN UNITY WITH THE SEE OF PETER. FOR THAT REASON IT LOST THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT PROVIDE UNIVERSAL PRIMACY. THUS, THE ORTHODOX CAN ONLY SPEAK OF ITS MANY BUT POOR ON ITS UNITY.

[You mentioned several Church Fathers like Optatus... ahve yourad the entire proceeedings of that local council? It was address to the Donatists who were trying to claim the BIshopric of Rome and for that reason, Optatus mentioned that about St. Peter and his chair... but does not elevating Rome above the others Churches especially those Apostolic ses like Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople... read between the lines.]

THE DONATISTS FAILED TO CLAIM THE BISHOPRIC OF ROME BUT THE NESTORIANS SUCCEEDED IN CLAIMING THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

NOW, DON'T TELL ME THAT WHEN ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH SAID THIS HE WAS ONLY REFERRING TO THE DONATISTS:

Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

SUPERLATIVE WORDS ARE USED BY THIS EASTERN FATHER TO THE SEE OF ROME. AND HE EVEN PROCLAIMED IT AS HAVING THE PRESIDENCY IN LOVE... PRIMACY IN CHARITY.

NOW, GIVE ME AN EQUALLY ANCIENT TEXT FROM THE SAME FATHER OF SAME REPUTE EXTOLLING THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. GIVE ME. C'MMON. IF THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE IS HIGHER THAN THE BISHOP OF ROME HOW COME CONSTANTINOPLE OR BYZANTIUM IS SILENT IN PATRISTIC SOURCES?

[Please don't get just one part of the proceedngs of the councils in elevating or justifying the infalliability of the Pope and his Supremacy over his brother Bishops...]

YOU INSINUATE THAT I AM ONLY LOOKING AT PATRISTIC SOURCES PARTIALLY YET YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME AN IOTA OF PROOF THAT THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE IS AT PAR WITH THE BISHOP OF ROME. NOTHING AT ALL.

[ can I ask you something, HOW DOES POPE BENEDICT VI AND EVEN THE LATE JOHN PAUL AND YOUR GREAT THEOLOGIANS ADDRESS THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, IS IT NOT "HIS ALL HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH" ...]

HA, HA, HA... THEY ARE ADDRESSING HIM AS THAT BECAUSE YOUR PATRIARCH PREFERS THAT TITLE. BUT IN REALITY YOUR PATRIARCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE IS NOTHING IN COMPARISON WITH OUR POPE. HA, HA, HA...

OUR POPE IS CALLED 'YOUR HOLINESS' SO IN ORDER TO COUNTER THAT YOUR PATRIARCHS PREFER 'YOUR ALL HOLINESS'. WHAT IS HIS ALL? THE MOSLEMS UNDER HIS TERRITORY? IS HE REFERRING TO HAGIA SOPHIA WHO IS NOW AN AGING MUSEUM? OUR POPE DOES NOT NEED THE WORD 'ALL' TO BE SUCH. BECAUSE HIS MORAL AND SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY IS NOT FROM A SELF-INVENTED TITLE BUT FROM THE DIVINE WORD OF CHRIST.

LET OUR POPE AND YOUR PATRIARCH WALK ON THE STREETS AND LET US SEE TO WHOM MILLIONS OF THE FAITHFUL FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD SHALL GIVE THEIR REVERENCE. YOUR PATRIARCH IS APPEARING ON INTERNATIONAL NEWS MOSTLY WHEN HE IS VISITING OUR POPE OR WHEN OUR POPE VISITS HIM. OTHERWISE HE IS AN UNKNOWN INTERNATIONAL FIGURE.

[ do you think your hieararchs are ignorant of he emaning of that title?]

THEY ARE NOT IGNORANT. THEY ARE WELL AWARE THAT FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY THE BISHOPS OF CONSTANTINOPLE ARE JEALOUS OF THE BISHOP OF ROME. SO, THEY WANT TO GIVE HIM THE HAPPINESS THAT HE DESIRES WHICH HE DESERVES AS AN OLD MAN. OUR POPE DOES NOT NEED THAT TITLE. BECAUSE THEY EXUDES SO MUCH HOLINESS AND AUTHORITY THAT NONE ON EARTH POSSESS - THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER.

AS THE APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANS LINED THE STREETS TO BE REACHED BY PETER'S SHADOW SO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LINE THE STREETS WHEN OUR POPES ARE PASSING BY.

[ of that role? Please... think before you speak about the Orthodox Church.]

I THINK IT IS YOU WHO IS NOT THINKING HERE. YOU ARE IN DELUSION IF YOU THINK THAT YOUR PATRIARCH'S TITLE OF 'ALL HOLINESS' MAKES HIM EQUAL WITH OUR POPE. O NO, NO, NO... OUR POPE CAN EVEN COMMAND THE WHOLE WORLD TO CHANGE ITS CALENDARS AND EVEN THE DATES OF GREAT FESTIVITIES AND EVEN THE NON CATHOLIC WORLD OBEYS. LET US SEE IF YOUR PATRIARCH CAN DO THE SAME. YOUR PATRIARCHS CAN TRAVEL FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER WITHOUT BEING NOTICED BUT THE BISHOP OF ROME IS THE ONE REVERENCED BY PEOPLE: CATHOLIC AND NON-CATHOLIC ALIKE.

[And I suggest you read these books on line... and converts the Papal Church, just to tell you that not onl one nor two theologians have come and return to the Church of the Apostles and the Martyrs...]

O YOU WANT TO MAKE MY BLOG A DUMPING SITE OF YOUR PROPAGANDA HA. HOW NICE OF YOU. I SUGGEST THAT YOU OPEN YOUR OWN BLOG FOR YOUR PROPAGANDA.

IF YOU WILL LIST THE PEOPLE WHO TRANSFERRED TO YOU WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. THERE ARE MORE CONVERSIONS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN EASTERN EUROPE AS WELL. YOU CAN DECEIVE PEOPLE FROM TIME TO TIME BUT NOT FOR ALL TIME. SOON THEY WILL SEE THE EMPTINESS IN YOUR DISUNITY AND THEY WILL ALSO RETURN TO THE SEE OF PETER.

THAT IS WHY YOUR BISHOPS ARE SO COWARDLY ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. WE ALLOW YOU TO BUILD CHURCHES AS MUCH AS YOU WANT IN THE WEST BUT IN EASTERN EUROPE WE ARE SUPPRESSED BY YOUR REPEATED ATTACKS AND ACCUSATIONS OF PROSELYTISM. HOW COWARDLY. YOU WANT TO CONVERT OUR MEMBERS BUT YOU DON'T WANT YOUR PEOPLE TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE. YOU WERE AFRAID THAT OUR MISSIONARIES WILL CONVERT THEM EN MASSE.

October 15, 2010 9:42 AM

PART 3:

http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/10/refuting-another-orthodox-and-his-copy_6211.html