First among equals is the how the ecumenical councils agreed upon. The East and West agreed upon that in the early days of the church. Orthodox still would hold Rome as first among equals if Rome came back to the faith. Bishops with cannonical privileges is way different than having an infallible pope.
The bishop of Rome is important but not infallible.
Except many Eastern bishops ran to Rome for help when they argued with each other...
That’s how you handle synodal issues. You can appeal to other jurisdictions and they kinda act as an appellate court.
Rome would be first among equals, if they didn’t change so much from the early church. Papal infallibility is too far. We just have the different opinion perhaps. The church synodal church agreements can be the inspired direction of the Holy Spirit. We have seen time and time again the wildest popes of infamy, pirate pope, popes for sale, pope underground tunnels to a brothel, the infallibility is too much.
You just don't understand the dogma of papal infallibility. Yeah, we have had horrible popes. Yeah, we have even had popes that taught heresy. Papal infallibility only applies in very specific situations. Actually, the situation it applies to the most is when the Pope, acting as first amongst equals, is settling disputes in the Church once and for all. Look at the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Christians, even Saints, were on both sides of that issue and debated it for centuries. A Pope finally settled it, once in for all. With synodal issues, if you have 2 camps, the Pope can settle that. Patriarch Barthomew isn't first amongst equals, so he doesn't have the power to do this. This is why the Eastern Orthodox needs to come back in communion with Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s retarded and would easily prove the gates of hell have prevailed multiple times against Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s a doctrine made up in the 1800s.
The whole church together in agreement synodally (like in the Bible) is the pillar of truth. Not any one bishop.
Historically Rome appealed to other jurisdictions to settle disputes. So Rome was not the only appellate court.
An ecumenical council anathemized a pope in 600. The Vatican agreed with it. Was pope honorius infallible? The fact that you’ve had a literally teaching heresy pope that was rejected by both the East and West shows the early church did not adhere to the lies of Vatican 1.
First among equals is the how the ecumenical councils agreed upon. The East and West agreed upon that in the early days of the church. Orthodox still would hold Rome as first among equals if Rome came back to the faith. Bishops with cannonical privileges is way different than having an infallible pope.
The bishop of Rome is important but not infallible.
Except many Eastern bishops ran to Rome for help when they argued with each other...
And you say the Pope is "important" but you reject being in communion with him... Non-sequitur.
That’s how you handle synodal issues. You can appeal to other jurisdictions and they kinda act as an appellate court.
Rome would be first among equals, if they didn’t change so much from the early church. Papal infallibility is too far. We just have the different opinion perhaps. The church synodal church agreements can be the inspired direction of the Holy Spirit. We have seen time and time again the wildest popes of infamy, pirate pope, popes for sale, pope underground tunnels to a brothel, the infallibility is too much.
You just don't understand the dogma of papal infallibility. Yeah, we have had horrible popes. Yeah, we have even had popes that taught heresy. Papal infallibility only applies in very specific situations. Actually, the situation it applies to the most is when the Pope, acting as first amongst equals, is settling disputes in the Church once and for all. Look at the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Christians, even Saints, were on both sides of that issue and debated it for centuries. A Pope finally settled it, once in for all. With synodal issues, if you have 2 camps, the Pope can settle that. Patriarch Barthomew isn't first amongst equals, so he doesn't have the power to do this. This is why the Eastern Orthodox needs to come back in communion with Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s retarded and would easily prove the gates of hell have prevailed multiple times against Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s a doctrine made up in the 1800s.
The whole church together in agreement synodally (like in the Bible) is the pillar of truth. Not any one bishop.
Historically Rome appealed to other jurisdictions to settle disputes. So Rome was not the only appellate court.
An ecumenical council anathemized a pope in 600. The Vatican agreed with it. Was pope honorius infallible? The fact that you’ve had a literally teaching heresy pope that was rejected by both the East and West shows the early church did not adhere to the lies of Vatican 1.