You should concentrate firstly on the fact you are outside the Catholic Church .
LOL. You presume we should make a distinction in your sibling squabbles.
yes, but in (Matt 16:19) when Jesus says thou are Peter, and upon this rock it was obvious even to these orthodox scholars who Jesus was referring to as the rock
In 1 Peter 2, St. Peter himself attests that the cornerstone is Jesus Christ, and ALL the baptized are the living stones that build up the spiritual house, the royal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ.
So is Peter the only rock/stone where the Church is built? St. Peter himself says "no".
Oh, he was just being modest.
But seriously, IMHO the mods should split all the posts from about 148 onward, into a new thread (in the "Orthodox-Other Christian" section, since it's about Sedevacantists not Catholics).
Sedevanctists, Conclavists of all stripes, Mysticalists, followers of Vatican II, SPPX, Priestly Society of "St. Josephat," Ukrainian "Orthodox" Greek Catholic Church...all bow at the altar of Pastor Aeternus.
Where should we put the Altkatholisch/Old Catholic and Polish National Catholics?
We, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are the Catholics in any of these discussions. Beyond that, why should we be judge between you and your competitors for the title?
Solemn pronouncements by headless churches lack substance.
brother Dimond to an eastern orthodox
ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN “ORTHODOXY”
On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.
Evidently, your "supreme authority of the bishop of Rome" couldn't either, and held Vatican II.
As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II! But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.
Just showing that he hasn't a clue on "the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy."
Or your own: Vatican II had far more bishops, and it was called and approved by your bishop of Rome.
Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical! Equal vs. Equal results in a draw…
well, we have to bow to all your expertise in farce.
You have the larger problem that the only difference between Constantinople I and Ephesus II, from the Vatican POV, lay in Old Rome's protesting at the latter through a representative, where it protested from afar the former. Both Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch, who opened the former, and Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria, who opened the latter, were at the time not in communion with the archbishop of Old Rome.
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?
It didn't: we had one in 879 (Constantinople IV), a series of them in the XIIIth century (Constantinople V), 1672, (Synod of Jerusalem) etc.
That we didn't have any of the status of Ecumenical Councils, we didn't have any Church tearing heresies, while the Vatican, so mired in heresy-including squabbling over who was the real "supreme pontiff" and "font of unity"-had to keep making it up as it went along.
Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?
It strikes me as ridiculous that someone who rejects a council approved by the one "supreme pontiff" according to Pastor Aeternus
, should attempt to make such an arbitrary argument.
What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it?
Our side-or rather, those whom the Emperor could force to sign (Caesaropapism is only good when the Vatican does it)-signed with the proviso that it would have to be approved by a Synod convened in the East, which approval never was had.
On your side, you had your original pope still in Basel, opposed to your supreme pontiff Eugene as an "antipope" and his council a "robber council."
How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?
How on Earth could you logically say that Vatican II was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were?
What are the criteria?
Just one: Truth.
I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.
more likely because your fingers were down your ear canal
because we don't deal in theory, just the history and facts of how the Ecumenical Councils were conducted and approved.
Meanwhile, you still haven't solved even in theory how you arrogate the power to yourselves to reject a council your bishop of Rome approved.
Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.
like Vatican II
physician, heal thyself.