Yes, you are claiming for an office a super level of holy orders. That's quite clear.k.
Show me a charism of the Church not bestowed by a sacramental act.The Petrine Office established by Christ.
Rather fond of tautologies, aren't you.
If the Ultramontane's "petrine office" were an office, then, for instance, when your Pope John died the caretaker locum tenens could have continued Vatican II, or indeed the council itself-which you all are quick to claim are part of the "magesterium" whenever the absurdities of your "petrine office" are brought to the fore-could have continued the "collegial act' set in motion by Pope John. But no, according to the rules they had to wait for an actual bishop of Rome. The US Congress is fully empowered if the President is removed from office (dies, resigns etc.) and if there is a delay from the Vice-President assuming office (e.g. if the Vice-President dies or resigned: both have happened in the past. If, for instance, President Johnson had been impeached, there would have ensued a constitutional crisis because he had no Vice-President and there was no mechanism to replace him when he succeeded Lincoln nor if he was impeached, something the 25th Amendment wouldn't solve if Johnson didn't nominate a VP before impeachment). That is because the Presidency is an office. The British Parliament is not empowered after demise of the crown (death, abdication etc. of the monarch) as the monarcy is not an office (though modern changes on the automatic dissoluton of Parliament at the death of the monarch etc. have blurred the point here). You, not Christ, have vested charism to office of bishop of Rome (if you want to insist that it is an office, it is no different than office of bishop of Chicago, which carries no special charism though he is usually made a cardinal-another issue, but I won't go into that right now). Charism do not reside in abstactions like offices, they abide in persons. You all are confused on that point as much as your Protestant siblings, who think that just starting to preach ordains one a minister.
I read the ill conceived syllogism the first time. And many times before.On what grounds is it ill conceived?
Read what Holy Scripture says "He made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us."Christ paid the price for our sins, but do you believe that He had personal or original sin? That would be heretical.
The IC is heretical. No, He had neither personal nor original sin, but that is besides the point (and His paying the price for our sins as well). The God Who made Himself Who knew no sin to become sin for us had no need, nor was it fitting, that He have a mother untouched by sin. That she was born into ancestral sin is required by the Orthodox dogma of the Catholic Church. That she had no actual sin is not required by Orthodox dogma, but the Catholic Church has held that belief, based on our experience of her.
Go for it.God cannot be in the presence of sin, hence the fact that we need to be purified before we can be in the presence of the Beatific Vision...although I don't know how much of that you believe as an Eastern Orthodox.
He descended into Hell. Plenty of sin there. His mother's womb presents no problem.
And the supreme pontiff speak infallibly because he says so.Because Christ says so when He says He will build the Church upon St. Peter.
No, according to the Orthodox consensus of the Fathers, on his confession.
We do, and never had the need for the IC.You sound like it's an entree option at a buffet.
If it were, I would send it back to the cook.
This isn't dinner options we are talking about here. We are talking about the Faith.
Not the Orthodox Faith.
Your "doctors" are the ones who claimed He could do it, He should do it, therefore He did it. You yourself claim some problem needed a solution. There was no problem, hence no needed solution, no necessity of the IC.
The Faith isn't broken, so your "magisterium" should stop trying to fix it.