Dear brother Isa,
Let me recap this discussion before we continue:
Kaste quoted a statement from St. John Chrysostom.
You challenged it by saying that St. John Chrysostom disobeyed the bishop of Rome because he accepted ordination from St. Meletius who was supposedly excommunicated or declared a heretic by Rome
You are skipping the part where I (and others) St. John was quoted (including the same sermon that he? she? quoted) where he says equally nice things about St. John and St. James, points out that Peter was sent (and as the Bible says, the sender is greater than the sent) by the Apostles to Samaria, James had the greater authority at the Council of Jerusalem, etc....
I do believe it was pointed out that St. Basil equally disobeyed the bishop of Rome and accepted ordination from Meletius.
I responded by stating that you erred in stating that St. Meletius was excommunicated or declared a heretic by Pope St. Damasus. (After I read through the thread, I realized Father George asked Kaste to respond to your claim before making any other statements; I hope my assertion will serve to satisfy Fr. George's request in Kaste's stead)
I quoted St. Jerome's whinny letter to the "Supreme Pontiff" on the matter. And the FACT that St. Flavian was consecrated to succeed St. Meletius in defiance of the insistence of the Bishop of Rome that Paulinus be recognized.
You responded by quoting some Catholic source
Which, unlike your posts, has your "Magisterium" seal of approval and its A-OK.
You've yet to respond with any source, modern let alone ancient.
that Constantinople was out of communion with Rome from such date to such date.
That's where we're at. Permit this initial response. Your citation of the lack of communion between Constantinople and Rome has absolutely nothing to do with the main thesis - namely, the falsehood of your statement regarding St. Meletius. I only need show that St. Meletius was not condemned by Rome as you claim. If I can show that, then it will be proven that St. Chrysostom did not disobey the Pope by being ordained by him.
Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to find my old notes to support my statements from St. Basil. I will do so when I return in a week or so.
Mardukm, you used that same excuse at byzcath six months ago.http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/325299/mardukm#Post325299
where at last you alluded to same citations, but we never got what quotations you were basing yourself on.
When I return, I will also bring forth further testimony from St. Chrysostom that demonstrated he believed in the headship of the bishop of Rome.
While you are at it, show me that he practiced what you allege he preached.
However, I will say right now that I don't believe that proving the Pope was the head bishop of the Church demonstrates the monarchial papacy of the late middle ages. So I hope I don't get inundated with straw men arguments that I am claiming such a thing.
You mean that staw man that your coreligionists revere as Supreme Pontiff, as opposed to that pope which, reading the responses of your coreligionists at CAF, seems to exist only in the ecclesiology of your petite eglise?