Are sedevacantists just a regular schismatics or a full blown heretics...

>Well, a schism is when the valid part of the Church divides itself from the core, keeping the proper teachings.
If they divide over the teachings, there is obviously a difference in teachings.

I converted from Protestantism to Christianity (Orthodoxy)

Catholicism = Christianity
Protestantism = meme

Easternism is not Christian. It's heresy.

Catholicism = Whore of Babylon
Protestantism = True Christianity

Protestantism is not Christianity, it's heresy

They're Christian, just schismatics.

>he fell for anti-Catholic memes
What true Christianity? There's thousands of different protestant denominations but only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself.

Study Church history. You're an embarrassment.

>"This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her."
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, AD 395

>But, even the Church itself by itself, because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission.
Vatican I, Session 3, Chapter 3, AD 1870

Protestantism = the "scatters" of Matthew 12:30

this

As for Luther, he's one of the false-prophets (just like Muhammad) whom Christ was speaking of in Matthew 7:15-20.

"the diseased tree bears bad fruit" :

>There's thousands of different protestant denominations but only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself.
Good lord, will this meme never die?
>Study Church history. You're an embarrassment.
You couldn't be more ironic if you tried.
The law in which Catholic priests were hanged until nearly dead and then butchered alive, while laymen were fined most their money for attending Catholic services, should be restored.

>The law in which Catholic priests were hanged until nearly dead and then butchered alive, while laymen were fined most their money for attending Catholic services, should be restored.
Luther truly should have been burned alive at the stake.

Papist

We don't worship the pope you dunce.

>When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."
CCC 880

>The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
CCC 881

>"This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."
CCC 885

Yet he's the infallible Holy Father (blasphemy)

>Catholicism = Whore of Babylon
Incredibly stale 16th century propaganda.

Babylon is pre-70 AD Jerusalem:
>But who is the harlot? Some say that is Roman Catholicism, but in light of what we have seen so far, the woman who rides the beast is a parody of the pure bride of Christ, and represents the rejected and apostate Jerusalem which did not recognize its Messiah, riding upon Rome in order to take advantage of its protection and authority and persecuting the church (17:6). The many images of apostate Israel as a harlot in the OT (Is. 1:21, Jer. 2:20-3:13, Hosea 9:1, Ezekiel 16) support this view.
tektonics.org/esch/revdate.php

Be careful not to insult the Pope bro, they've got the names of all protestants registered in the Vatican's big computers and the baby sacrificing Jesuit assassins ready to come get you!

Babylon is Rome
This intellectual dishonesty is why i despise your kind. I will never bend the knee to Baal again.

Yes, this is true.

Incidentally, it's also why the sedevacantists are completely wrong. They claim to adhere to the "true" Catholic Church, but forgot Jesus' own words to Peter. The Church and the Pope can never fail, God himself decreed it. SVs are no better than Protestants.

I mean for fuck's sake, John Paul II wasn't good enough for them, and he was traditional as fuck. Benedict wasn't good enough for them.

Your devil-church deserves it's current pontiff.

>Babylon is Rome
Nice proof, of course.

>Babylon is Christian Rome xD
>muh intellectual dishonesty
Beautiful hypocrisy.
>Baal
Here's what your father Luther had to say about Christ: Enjoy being more cancerous than ancient gnostic heretics.

I was serious about the priest laws.

The SVs would consider themselves identical to the laymen of the church during the Western Schism, probably. The "true Church" was and is always the true church, it's just that the administration temporarily fell into error that will be corrected in the future (long term).

>The Church and the Pope can never fail, God himself decreed it.

I have no dog in this fight, but that's an absolutely insane idea and I cannot fathom how anyone could see it as anything but incredibly dangerous. That kind of thinking seems to me like a blank check for a massive organization like the church to get up to all kinds of horrible shit on the basis of "if we're doing it, it must be godly, because everything we do is godly, after-all neither us nor our leader can fail."

Watch your mouth proddy or else I'll call in the Jesuit assassins.

Not him but that's clearly not what he meant. Read and Matthew 16:18 though.

Misleading without context
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Germany)
>In English it is often called the Catholic Centre Party. Formed in 1870, it battled the Kulturkampf which the Prussian government launched to reduce the power of the Catholic Church. It soon won a quarter of the seats in the Reichstag (Imperial Parliament), and its middle position on most issues allowed it to play a decisive role in the formation of majorities. Its support for the Nazi Party was decisive in the passage of the Enabling Act, whereby Adolf Hitler assumed dictatorial powers.

Of course that's not what he meant. I very highly doubt Jesus would be all like "lol, Peter, go off and do whatevs because I've always got your back." I just mean the kind of thinking that you can't possibly fail in God's mission seems to me as though it would be fuel to justify all manner of horrific shit on the basis that you can never fail in God's mission.

Considering the checkered history of the church, I don't think I'm wrong.

>Of course that's not what he meant
I was talking about this user

Who is the Whore of Babylon?

Well I know that's not what he meant either. I was referring to the specific passage and its wider implications.

The Catholic Church!

ur mum lmoa

>WAAAAAHHHH!!! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE WHOOORE OF BAAABYLONN!!!!1111 THE WHOOOOREEEE OF BAAAABYYYYLOOOON!!!!11 THE WHOOOOREEEEEE!!!!!11111

But to be Catholic is to believe the Church when it says it has continued on, unbroken, from the time of Christ himself. The priests of the present day trace their authority directly to the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit is passed down to them from a laying on of hands that has continued for two thousand years. I don't understand how you can call yourself Catholic and not believe in the institutional Church.

...

>Follow traditional Catholicism as it was before vatican II
>Heretic

Jesus and the Popes before Vatican II, are they heretic because they didn't practice Post Vatican II Catholicism(cucktholicism) ?

Complete outsider here. What changed with Vatican II?

The eucharist is chips now.

A LOT OF THING

Jews aren't the murderers of Christ anymore in fact their shitty religion is now valid (Deny Jesus sacrifice)
Heathens like muslims are saved (Deny Jesus sacrifice)
The priests face the laity and turn their back to God while celebrating the mass (Place humans above God)

AND SO ON

Yes, and the SV priests would trace themselves back to Peter and consider the "instutional" post-Vatican II church the same way the Orthodox are thought of.

>Babylon is Rome

[citation needed]

>The priests face the laity and turn their back to God while celebrating the mass (Place humans above God)

More like, before, they were facing god in the name of the humans. Now they face the humans in the name of god.

the jews were never christkillers you retarded mongoloid

>Roman Catholics do not place the blame for Jesus' death on the Romans
Shocking development.

Pilate Washes his Hands
(Mark 15:12-15)
24When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You shall bear the responsibility.”c
25All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”
26So Pilate released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged and handed Him over to be crucified.

The French-Jewish historian and Holocaust survivor Jules Isaac, in the aftermath of WW2, played a seminal role in documenting the anti-Semitic traditions in Catholic church thinking, instruction and liturgy. The move to draw up a formal document of repudiation gained momentum AFTER A PRIVATE AUDIENCE Isaac obtained with Pope John XXIII in 1960.[43] In the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI issued the declaration Nostra aetate ("In Our Time"), which among other things repudiated belief in the collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.[3] Nostra aetate stated that, even though some Jewish authorities and those who followed them called for Jesus' death, the blame for what happened cannot be laid at the door of all Jews living at that time, nor can the Jews in our time be held guilty. It made no explicit mention of Matthew 27:24–25, but only of John 19:6.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide#Repudiation

This is why i became Orthodox, catholicism litterally spit on the Face of Christ because some kikes complained about "how intolerant catholicism was" a religion like that can't be taken seriously

>converted to Orthodoxy because Catholicism wasn't racist enough
Great company you keep, Constantine.

What?

>wasn't racist enough
It's not about being racist, it's about being coherant and respectful towards Jesus and God.

Cucktholicism truly deserve his name imo

pic related

>666
You were never Catholic to begin with and you fell for a meme. Congrats.

>deserve
Yup, the Church is truly kαθολιkή.

>kαθολιkή

As usual, you catholics, place the catholicity of the church above all and forget that the ἀποστολιkὴ of the church is equal or perhaps even more important.

Pilate is considered guilty for Christ's murder in Orthodoxy. Westerners seem to have a benign view of him, but we certainly don't. He might have thought it was stupid to kill Christ, but he still shares responsibility for his death. He also was, even from a purely secular perspective, a pretty bad person, he was almost fired for his brutality. According to tradition, he ended his life by committing suicide (not out of guilt, either, like with Judas). His wife was cool though. Pilate washing his hands formally, doesn't actually acquit him. That's pretty strongly stressed in the Nicene Creed, "...he was Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate....". Of course, that doesn't acquit the people demanding he be crucified, or Jews today who think it was righteous to kill him (I've encountered Orthodox Christians who affirm Christ's killing as perfectly reasonable).

I don't agree with using racial slurs, but if by "Jews" we are talking about adherents to Judaism (Pharisees), then he is right that Western Christians are absolutely too chummy with them. Their religion hates Christ and are his worst enemy, beyond even paganism or Islam (and the latter, though a false religion, does have a good opinion of Christ). The Talmud says extremely spiteful and slanderous things about both Christ and his mother, and I'm not talking about what /pol/ makes up about the Talmud.

As a side note, Jews have also complained about Orthodox Liturgy as well and tried to get us to remove things they find offensive, although that's absolutely impossible for us, it would be like removing verses from Scripture because people are offended.

Pilate is considered guilty for Christ's murder in Orthodoxy. Westerners seem to have a benign view of him, but we certainly don't. He might have thought it was stupid to kill Christ, but he still shares responsibility for his death. He also was, even from a purely secular perspective, a pretty bad person, he was almost fired for his brutality. According to tradition, he ended his life by committing suicide (not out of guilt, either, like with Judas). His wife was cool though. Pilate washing his hands formally, doesn't actually acquit him. That's pretty strongly stressed in the Nicene Creed, "...he was Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate....". Of course, that doesn't acquit the people demanding he be crucified, or Jews today who think it was righteous to kill him (I've encountered Orthodox Jews who affirm Christ's killing as perfectly reasonable).

I don't agree with using racial slurs, but if by "Jews" we are talking about adherents to Judaism (Pharisees), then he is right that Western Christians are absolutely too chummy with them. Their religion hates Christ and are his worst enemy, beyond even paganism or Islam (and the latter, though a false religion, does have a good opinion of Christ). The Talmud says extremely spiteful and slanderous things about both Christ and his mother, and I'm not talking about what /pol/ makes up about the Talmud.

As a side note, Jews have also complained about Orthodox Liturgy as well and tried to get us to remove things they find offensive, although that's absolutely impossible for us, it would be like removing verses from Scripture because people are offended.

How is that any different from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_churches
?

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Judea that are in Christ Jesus. You suffered from your own countrymen the very things they suffered from THE JEWS, WHO KILLED BOTH THE LORD JESUS and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. They are displeasing to God and hostile to all men, hindering us from telling the Gentiles how they may be saved. As a result, they continue to heap up their sins to full capacity; the utmost wrath has come upon them.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

I guess i will become protestant if Orthodoxy is also cucked and doesn't follow the Bible.

>He also was, even from a purely secular perspective, a pretty bad person,
Hold the phone, are we talking about the biblical Pontius Pilate who is a reasonable man fored into an impossible position or the historical Pontius Pilate who was a total thoughtless asshole? Because if we'really using the historical version of figures, we should probably speak of the apocalyptic Reform Judaism preacher (or, from a position of Orthodoxy, the hereric) Yeshua who was absolutely not the messiah as opposed to Jesus the Christ.

>The Talmud says extremely spiteful and slanderous things about both Christ and his mother
From a Jewish perspective, Yeshua seduced other Jews into a heretical religion and later made then Gentiles even more anti-Jewish than before. The things in the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu are perfectly understandable expressions of said frustrations. You cannot tell me you have not heard Catholics who say they wish Luther had been executed before he could spurn the reformation, nor can you tell me Orthodox have not wished similar things about the Roman pontiff before the schism.

Mark 16:15. Which Church did so?

Is your second paragraph bait?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Paris

You'll find Protestantism sure as hell doesn't subscribe to any hatred of Jews racially. The guy who wrote what you just quoted was racially Jewish. CHRIST is racially Jewish.

Pontius Pilate thought killing Christ was unjust, but he was also a brutal tyrant, and the Orthodox have always thought of him as such. Newsflash: he was a real human being, he was not either pure evil or pure good, he was complicated. Judas is also regarded as wicked and commonly held up as an example of the worst kind, yet he also returned the money he was paid for his betrayal out of realization it was wrong, and hanged himself for it.

In fact, Pilate was brutal to the Jews largely out of contempt for their religion (which he intentionally trolled), so it makes perfect sense he'd see a religiously-motivated killing done by Jews as idiotic. Nietzsche's take on Pilate's feelings was probably accurate.

I'm not saying I can't put myself in Jewish shoes, but the Talmud is a central text for their religion, and that makes their religion innately anti-Christ. We don't have to dehumanize, but to try to say they are our best pals and their faith is bros with ours, is just stupid and disgraceful, more importantly, it's dishonest, and just a way for Christians who try to assuage the guilt they feel for all that's happened to the Jews over the course of Christianity's dominance. Judaism and Christianity are completely opposing perspectives, and were ever since Christ, who called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers". We don't have to be uncivil, but trying to pretend the faiths are anything but direct enemies is self-delusion. There are lots of neat things about Jewish culture, music, history, and so on, and there is no reason that can't be celebrated be everyone who enjoys it, but when it comes time to talk the substance of faith, there is an absolute and hostile impasse.

>Is your second paragraph bait?
No, why would you say that?

>The Eastern Catholic Churches, also historically known as the Eastern-rite Catholic Churches or Uniate Churches, are 23 particular churches sui iuris in full communion with the Pope of Rome, which make up the Catholic Church together with the Latin Church.

So there are 24 Churches in the RCC Communion. How is that any different from having several in the Orthodox Church?

>complicated
What an easy word to get out of having to deal with the issue. The historical Pilate would not have given half a shit about crucifying some crazy Jewish preacher, nor would he care about the possible violations of Jewish custom he is shown as respecting within the Gospels.

>and just a way for Christians who try to assuage the guilt they feel for all that's happened to the Jews over the course of Christianity's dominance.
Christianity was very literally created by Jews. Granted, Jews that were greekwashed and much more educated in classical philosophy than in their ancestral theology, but Jews nonetheless. And Orthodox Judaism isn't much different from Christianity in that it is largely a cultural club that exists to make the members feel more comfortable. Really, you aren't enemies, since both of you desire preventing the more liberal members of your religion (or former members) from having the ability to change things. The only difference is the justification, which is the most superficial part of the equation.

>in full communion with the Pope of Rome
"Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!"
(Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI, St. Peter’s Square, April 24, 2005)

Read Matthew 12:30 and John 10:16.

>The historical Pilate would not have given half a shit about crucifying some crazy Jewish preacher, nor would he care about the possible violations of Jewish custom he is shown as respecting within the Gospels.
Why do you think he wouldn't care about crucifying Christ? It was his job to judge him. The Jews could not put people to death, only the Romans could, that was the law. Pilate didn't find Christ as any violator of Roman law, though Jews tried to paint him as one. Pilate wouldn't bother executing Christ at all, except that he has nearly caused a revolt before and is worried about doing so again, because the last time he was threatened by the emperor.

Orthodox Judaism comes directly our of Pharisaic Judaism. Pharisees and Christians have always been enemies.

If we both see our faiths as authored by God, why would we want them changed by human beings? If you did want then, you aren't really a believer.

We're in full communion with each other. So I ask again, what's the difference?

The orthodox have national churches just like protestants, kek.

>John 10:16
And who is shepherd of John 10? Not Peter.

>Matthew 12:30
And is Peter saying this?

>Pilate didn't find Christ as any violator of Roman law, though Jews tried to paint him as one.
This is the Biblical view of Pilate, that finds him a tragic figure forced into an impossible position. From what we know of him in history, the actual historical Pilate would not have cared about the complaints against Yeshua and would have dismissed them like he had dismissed many complaints prior.

>If we both see our faiths as authored by God, why would we want them changed by human beings?
You wouldn't. And both of you would be allies against the tide of modernity invading your safe spaces, which are remarkably similar.

Read Matthew 16:18.

One flock, one shepherd; this is Christ's will.

What don't you understand?

See

So do Catholics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church

>From what we know of him in history, the actual historical Pilate would not have cared about the complaints against Yeshua and would have dismissed them like he had dismissed many complaints prior.

Except Pilate was already on the emperor's shitlist for upsetting the Jews.

>You wouldn't. And both of you would be allies against the tide of modernity invading your safe spaces, which are remarkably similar.
Allies? In what way? Certainly not in geopolitics. Do you mean in state politics? Religious Jews don't care about abortion or gay marriage so long as gentiles are the ones doing it and it's not in Israel.

The shepherd in John 10 is Christ, can you not read the context of the verse?

Christ doesn't say, "On your chair I build my Church." The rock is Peter's person, not an office. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter just exhorts bishops as a fellow bishop, something no Pope would do who buys the RCC perspective.

Peter is a rock (like all the other Apostles, although Peter is the principle one) in FOUNDATION, his role as founder (Revelation 21:14). Not later Pope had that role.

>Except Pilate was already on the emperor's shitlist for upsetting the Jews.
So, again, going back to the actual historical record, why didn't he execute every Tom, Dick and Harry messiah claimant that upset the mainstream Jewish religion? And if he did, surely we ought to see more of it?

>Religious Jews don't care about abortion or gay marriage so long as gentiles are the ones doing it and it's not in Israel.
Even assuming that religious Jews only care about what happens within the borders of Isreal, you don't think they would worry about what would happen if the Western world allied with them were to *actually* crumble and leave them alone isolated in a hostile middle east? Or if all the liberal secular ethnic Jews were to migrate to Isreal with all the fifth-column ideologies they accidentally took seriously? This is just conspiracy theory at this point.

>in full communion with the Pope of Rome

>why didn't he execute every Tom, Dick and Harry messiah claimant that upset the mainstream Jewish religion?
Because Jews didn't actually flip a cow over regular Messiah claimants. They flipped out over Jesus because he suggested he was God.

>Even assuming that religious Jews only care about what happens within the borders of Isreal
I didn't say that, I said they aren't concerned with pushing back modernism among gentiles. And they really aren't, why would they be? Gentiles are only bound to follow the Noahide laws in their eyes.

> you don't think they would worry about what would happen if the Western world allied with them were to *actually* crumble and leave them alone isolated in a hostile middle east?
I don't think they are worried about the West "crumbling", at least in some sense where they are no longer a financial and military powerhouse. And frankly, I don't see that happening any time soon either.

ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

Peter (Cephas) is the rock (Cephas) and the authority to bind and loose was given to Peter and to the Church.

We have to look at the context to whom Jesus is speaking. Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16:

>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19

The authority to bind and loose was given to the Church in Matthew 18. The Church is the context:

>If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:17-19

"Binding and loosing" is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.

This authority includes interpreting and applying the Word of God and admitting people to and excommunicating them from the community of faith. For the Jews this meant the community of Israel. For Christians this means the Church.

>Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all.
(Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

>The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren.
(John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

>Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.
(Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30])

Writing to Pope Leo III:
>Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.
(Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

orthocucks on suicide watch

Binding and loosing refers to the ability to absolve sins. He's obviously not telling the Apostles they can make laws that apply to heaven.

Meant for

See >"Ever since the popes were first articulate about the General Council, they have claimed the right to control its action and to give or withhold an approbation of its decisions which stamps them as the authentic teaching of the Church of Christ. Only through their summoning it, or through their consenting to take their place at it (whether personally or by legates sent in their name), or by their subsequent acceptance of the council, does the assembly of bishops become a General Council.

>No member of the Church has ever proposed that a General Council shall be summoned and the pope be left out, nor that the pope should take any other position at the General Council but as its president...in no council has it been moved that the Bishop of X be promoted to the place of the Bishop of Rome, or that the bishop of Rome's views be disregarded and held of no more account than those of the bishop of any other major see...the general shape is ever discernible of a Roman Primacy universally recognized, and submitted to, albeit (at times) unwillingly -- recognized and submitted to because, so the bishops believed, it was set up by God himself."

(Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, page 5-6)

None of these are considered documents of theological witness for either Catholics or Orthodox, c'mon, man.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council inspected Leo's Tome to ensure it was orthodox before approving it. Notice he couldn't just put it there.

Peter didn't even preside over the Council of Jerusalem, James the Just did.

>None of these are considered documents of theological witness
They are still relevant.

>Council of Jerusalem
Bait?

>They are still relevant.
Not unless you want to argue the Roman position on the Papacy as a theologoumenon rather than a dogma

>Bait?
It was a Great Council

Bait?

That the Council of Jerusalem was presided over by James, or that it was a General Council?

Your mere mention of the Council of Jerusalem.

I know you longer see anything wrong with eating blood, so I guess it's possible you reject it.