Again, I'm this is not what I'm referring to. It's Izzy's
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?
Quite possible. But remember the EO and the Protestants have different views on the Papacy. We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church, albeit we do not agree with how his role is defined and even dogmatized. Most Protestants don't even believe in the Episcopacy. They don't reject the Pope because of universal ordinary jurisdiction or supremacy or infallibility. They reject the Papacy because they reject the Episcopacy overall.
Yes, that is so. Yet I think that the early Reformers got many of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox, and not the other way around. Calling EO attacks on the RC's "protestant" seems weird to me.
overall rude and irrational attack on Cathoclicism which is very protestant.
an ad hominem attack is rude and irrational.
You have the links to a Protestant/Lutheran attack on the Vatican, and an refutation of the Vatican's claims by the pillar of Orthodoxy, St. Photius the Great
The reason Protestants exist is to protest the Catholic Church.
It seems that you agree with the Protestants: they assUmed, as shown by the correspondence of the Tubingen Lutheran theologians with EP Jeremiah II, the same assertion you are making, and concluded that they and Orthodoxy were one and the same. The EP disabused them of such folly.
This seems to be Izzy's
reason for being here.
I'm just here as a Catholic defending the Orthodox Faith.