Papacy Debate FULL VIDEO: The Role of the Pope in the 1st Millenium | John Collorafi vs. Ubi Petrus

[@devinlawson2208]

Good job Ubi. It seemed to me, that Mr. Collorafi was getting frustrated with some of the questions you raised, and you could have easily “turned up the Heat” and let the kettle boil over, but you didn’t. I think your insistence but kindness sets you apart in the world of Orthodox Apologetics. Thank you for the content and thank you for being a class act!

[@JayDyer]

Wow - he admits the norm in the early church was conciliarism @ 33:00.

[@mythologicalmyth]

17. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. HERE IT CLEARLY admits no canonical authority. So, what would EO admit is the primacy? As an EO NOT Papist, I see Holy Writ placing Holy Apostle St Peter w Keys and a place of “honorific primacy” if you must. However, EO practice seems to relegate St Peter as Prots do the Holy Virgin. So, what does honor mean? Primacy of honor today seems to mean “denigration” a detestation perhaps or a rejection. This reminds me of how Prots denigrate the Holy Theotokos and attempt to still say they “honor” her but simultaneously say she is is just like any other woman. This is absurd and sickening. How can one hold the bishop of Rome in a place of primacy and honor and despise the same person-position? (I’m not directing these questions directly to you, necessarily). Anyone who can actually prove they honor St Peter’s primacy will convince me they honor the hierarchy of Christ’s commands and not their own.

[@aristotlesghost7242]

Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@California4Christ the whole church referred to it as the First See; Constantinople was the Second See. Perhaps the First See diminished in “honor” just as the Second See seems to be doing now. I hear Moscow wants to be the Third.

[@t.d6379]

​@@mythologicalmythhOnOrIfIc PrImAcY 😂 cope

[@JayDyer]

Got him at @36:00 and 37:00

[@JayDyer]

JC error: The keys in RC theology is jurisdiction, sacramental power and authority. Thats given to all the apostles in RC theology. Quotemine, therefore vatican 1. Proof for Peter passing on full authority to only Rome? “it’s tradition. He was there for years.” Choryphaeus, therefore vatican 1. Peter called “prince.” Western councils and popes appeal to “keys.” None of these prove vatican 1 claims. In fact, in the opening statement JC didnt even quote or appeal to vatican 1 at all lol.

[@mythologicalmyth]

Collorafi’s scholarship makes you pre-school. You’re kinda basic and random, abusing the “presuppositional.”

[@theophan9530]

"East Illyricum... you know it's far far to the East.... even includes a part of today's Greece..." - Yeah, but it was part of the Western Patriarchate until the VIIIth century.

[@Leo-uq6jp]

Well done again Ubi, I think the results are clearly in your favor.

[@JCGaladhrim]

Thank you for releasing the entire debate! I th8nk this will be of profit to many.

[@jep6752]

Were they doing this over walkie-talkies?

[@princekermit0]

Sounds like old phone lines

[@tradorthobrodyermanduginpageau]

Thanks for the interesting debate!

[@JayDyer]

Did he just say Rome is never called a patriarchate? Lol wut

[@ubipetrus3882]

Yeah, that's what he said.

[@yannisvaroufakis9395]

The Pope's own scholars, in their Chieti document published by the Vatican, concede that in the first Millennium, the Pope's primacy was only one of honor, and that he did not exercise jurisdiction over any of the other Patriarchates. Thus, Rome admits that Vatican I is not to be found in the pre-Schism Church.

[@mythologicalmyth]

Could you cite this so I can read it?

[@mythologicalmyth]

Could you cite this so I can read it?

[@randomguy1453]

​@@mythologicalmyththe Chieti document is free online, it is only a few pages long and it is beneficial to read the whole document

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@randomguy1453 17. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. So, what does honor mean? Primacy of honor today seems to mean “denigration” a detestation perhaps or a rejection. This reminds me of how Prots denigrate the Holy Theotokos and attempt to still say they “honor” her but she is is just like any other woman. This is absurd and sickening. How can one hold the bishop of Rome in a place of primacy and honor and despise the same person-position? (I’m not directing these questions directly to you).

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@randomguy1453 17. In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East. So, what does honor mean? Primacy of honor today seems to mean “denigration” a detestation perhaps or a rejection. This reminds me of how Prots denigrate the Holy Theotokos and attempt to still say they “honor” her but she is is just like any other woman. This is absurd and sickening. How can one hold the bishop of Rome in a place of primacy and honor and despise the same person-position? (I’m not directing these questions directly to you).

[@michaelcpucci]

Popes have contradicted each other on whether they hold the key of knowledge, which is the “key” to unwinding infallibility IMHO. Nicholas III says he has key of knowledge; John XXII says he doesn’t; Clement XI says he is infallible about dogmatic facts when combating Jansenism. All three were prompted by pressure from busybody religious orders.

[@order_truth_involvement6135]

Good job Ubi, you held on pretty well to his critiques.

[@prometheusjones6580]

Great debate. Do you have any further sources on the meaning of the "keys of the kingdom" in the early church beyond the Catholic Encyclopedia article?

[@theophan9530]

St Cyprian's Letters, St Ambrose ("On Penance",) St Pacian of Barcelona (Letters to Simpronian, "Against the Treatise of the Novatians"), St Isidore of Seville ("De Ecclesiasticis officiis"), St Augustine, St Bede the Venerable ("Homilies"), St Gregory of Nyssa ("On those who complain about reproaches")... Really in the vast majority of the cases the "power of the keys" = sacerdotal power, and especially remission of sins, and it is explicitly the same power promised first to St Peter and then given to the Apostles (that's why St Cyprian can affirm that "the Apostles were what Peter was" and had "equal honor and power" (cf. De Unitate Ecclesiæ, chap. 4)).

[@ematouk100]

Hey Ubi, which Saint is on the icon you use for your display photo?

[@BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian]

Pretty sure it's St. Peter, just done in a Western style.

[@tynytian]

Sounds like a cola commercial, this guy sighing everytime he doesn't have an answer.

[@Patrickseventyfour]

If I am understanding the discussion regarding making a certain individual the bishop of Corinth around the 1 hour, 5 minute mark - was the point Ubi was making that Rome was objecting to a lower ecclesiastical body second guessing (effectively usurping) the authority of a higher ecclesiastical body *within same jurisdiction?* (That is, jurisdiction as we'd understand it today). In other words, it apoears Ubi is clarifying thst Corinth, at the time, was under the authority of Rome. As such, Rome was exercising proper authority within its jurisdiction. In distinction, this would not be the same thing as, say, telling Alexandria that it couldn't second guess/re-examine Rome's installation of a bishop in Cairo. It appears Mr. Collorafi is so linked to the simple words that he's ignoring context. IF, that is, my understanding of the context is correct.

[@countryboyred]

Being considered a lower ecclesiastical body doesn’t equate to papal supremacy though. Rome was the adjudicator for a lot of problems within the Church because they were Orthodox, established by both Peter and Paul not a singular charism given to Peter alone. “First among equals” doesn’t equate to universal supreme monarch of the church. The early church operated in a synodal system with respect to collegiality among the bishops.

[@Patrickseventyfour]

@@countryboyred Well, that was my point: it seems to me that Mr. Callorafi was saying "because I see this language, it reminds me of similar things we NOW say about papal supremacy, so that's how I'll interpret it." That seems to me to be a bit anachronistic and also does NOT take into context what was actually going on. Instead, he uses his current starting assumptions (Vatican I, basically) to interpret the text to mean what he wants it to mean to support his claim for his starting assumptions (Vatican I). In other words, a circular argument.

[@countryboyred]

@@Patrickseventyfour I concur.

[@adoniplaitis4765]

Premiere from 2 years ago?

[@conorspyridon7008]

I was just thinking the same ..

[@nathancurtis9779]

Its always worrying when someone says "p g" instead of (page).

[@Itasca1]

I thought the same, until I prayed to stop over-reacting to it. Then, I realized the references were: PL, page numbers in the Latin text, and PG, page numbers in the Greek text... Unless I'm wrong...?

[@johncollorafi257]

You can be quite certain that I read the PG or PL; it would have been foolhardy to fake that with the interlocutor I was facing. There may however have been some mistakes; for example Meletius signed the Council of Damasus with anathema at PL 13: 353 iirc. It's actually called a Synod of Rome and Antioch.

[@Itasca1]

Thank you for your response! I appreciate the further details. I am quite new to all of this illuminating historical information. And, I had missed the first portion of the debate. So, when I heard you saying "P-G," I had not yet heard the quotations identified as "P-L." My initial error referenced in my first comment, was clearly not realizing, until I listened from the beginning, that you were not simply reading the abbreviation for page: "pg." as "p-g." It became clear when I realized the references were to page numbers in the Latin and Greek texts. That is why I offered my analysis of own faulty perception in response to the other commenter. I learned much from the debate, and am thankful that Ubi Petrus reposted it!

[@theophan9530]

Citing Fathers out of context and self-imbued Roman bishops in moments of crisis is the only RC weapon left : St Theodore the Studite, who was a staunch Pentarchist and praises Rome for its Orthodox stance in the Iconoclast controversy (which Rome could afford because it was not really under Byzantine rule), St Augustine, who did not recognize an universal jurisdiction of Rome or that the power of the keys is exclusive to St Peter, St Maximus who is the only Greek Father to go so far in the context of the monothelite controversy in order to prop up the authority of the Lateran Synod (which failed to end the question and is not recognized as ecumenical) - let's notice as well that the quote Collorafi gives is from a dubious text that does not look like a regular letter from St Maximus and deserves critical attention. The comparison to Moses if not in itself a proof of Papalism (others are also compared to Moses and no one draws that same conclusion), nor the fact that Peter was considered the first bishop/sacerdotal figure (see St Cyprian who does not think that "primatus" means anything more than "priority in time" and believes all the Apostles to have equal honor and power... a point of view shared by many others East and West, like St Isidore of Seville, St Bede the Venerable, St Ambrose of Milan...).

[@mythologicalmyth]

those same saints might slap you for denigrating St Peter.

[@theophan9530]

@@mythologicalmyth Only if I indeed denigrate him - which isn't the case - by not putting him above his brethren in a jurisdictional sense, or put his faith as intrinsically higher and more firm than that of the other Apostles. I think St Peter does not like the debasing of primacy (in the context of collegial fraternity) into absolute monarchy and juridical supremacy. If St Peter reproaches me anything, St Cyprian and St Firmilian will then protect me, along with most of the Fathers who are in heaven.

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@theophan9530 Wow. You put that like it’s a D&D game, hypothetically pitting Holy Apostles against each other. Christ called him blessed above all. You call him the same!

[@InfraPrimal]

@@mythologicalmythpresupposing we reject the power of St. Peter

[@mxthakid9863]

I’ll let out such a big sigh when he said ‘we need to answer is Peter?’ In regards to the papacy.

[@Eloign]

Ubi needs a better mic I can't understand a word hes' saying. :( Update: I offered to buy him new equipment if needed and my comment was deleted. Not sure why. I’m not being mean I’m trying to help smh

[@Lordoftheplains]

This video is two years old.

[@ubipetrus3882]

...and here starts the complaining about something they're getting entirely for free... The situation si that Mr. Collorafi did not have WIFI so we had to have the debate over the phone.

[@Eloign]

@@ubipetrus3882 No need to be nasty I'm saying it's hard to hear. Which it is. I'd buy you a mic if you needed one. I would help you if you needed it.

[@bljet4388]

@@ubipetrus3882 it's not that serious bruv

[@mythologicalmyth]

Sounds clear on my tv.

[@WarriorofOrthodoxy]

Collorafi and papacy was cooked😂. Thanks Ubi Petrus! 🙏☦️

[@johnnyd2383]

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria... on THREE Petrine sees.! For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the SEE OF ONE, and ONE SEE, over which by Divine authority THREE BISHOPS NOW PRESIDE, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. In other words... Rome can claim 1/3 of the Petrine legacy only. Other 2/3 belong to Eastern Orthodox.

[@FosterDuncan1]

Why can’t ubi debates not sound like there on a crapy radio

[@ninjason57]

Tradition dictates they must not progress beyond radio 😝

[@johnchrysostomon6284]

The difficulty of the Catholic to find an example of the pope acting unilaterally

[@mythologicalmyth]

What does the pen name Ubi Petrus mean to you? It seems to be a jab at St Peter or an affirmation of the Church being the Rock?

[@mythologicalmyth]

“It was the Second Ecumenical Council (Canon 3) which equated the Patriarch of Constantinople with Rome and other Apostolic Sees. The literal meaning of that canon granted the prerogative of honor to the Patriarch of Constantinople, putting him in the second place after the Bishop of Rome. The Council granted a special place of honor to the Bishop of New Rome but no power: the Bishop of the new capital continued formally to be subject to the Metropolitan of Heraclea. Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council reads: “As the bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the New Rome.” We can see in Canon Three of the Second Ecumenical Council only that the Patriarch of Constantinople, as the bishop of New Rome, must have the prerogatives of honor after the Bishop of Rome. However, this canon says nothing about the supremacy of Rome or Constantinople or about the administrative or judicial rights with respect to those patriarchs.” As the third level in Church, matters of its dioceses including judicial authority (canons 9* and 17* of Chalcedon) the Patriarch of Constantinople in principle and according to canons stood on an absolutely the same level with his other brother-patriarchs. However Canons 9 and 17 opened an alternative for the Patriarch of Constantinople, i.e. as a rather far-reaching possibility to interfere in the affairs of other patriarchs as well as an extension of his authority over them.” -Archbishop Gregory (Afonsky) * Canon 9 

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried. Canon 17 

Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.
 HONOR ME WITH YOUR LIPS, BUT YOUR HEART IS FAR FRO ME.

[@johnchrysostomon6284]

Where the papal model fails. Peter was made pope by Jesus. “On this rock…” But Jesus then gives the powers of binding and loosing to the other Apostles. Why? If Peter has been commissioned pope then he should then be passing on his charism to the other Apostles. But wait you say… Jesus was still around. So… We then have Paul. Jesus has now ascended into heaven leaving Peter in charge of the church. But again Jesus directly makes Paul an Apostle.

[@andreipopa9180]

I understand like that: Everyone who confess the true Rock wich is Christ “because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel” (Genesis 49), becomes himself a rock. St. Peter confessed first, that's why he is called rock, on the base of his knowledge from the Father. In the garden, when Peter tries to reject the Passion is called by Christ Satan, because of Christ denial suffering. After all the Apostles knew Christ well they are called all stones, “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21, 14). ☺️

[@mythologicalmyth]

Canons 9 & 17 of Chalcedon "(Grants) the Patriarch of Constantinople... to interfere in the affairs of other patriarchs as well as an extension of his authority over them.” but seems to privately prefer it as a "far-reaching possibility" -ARCHBISHOP GREGORY AFONSKY HONOR ME WITH YOUR LIPS BUT..........What kind of honor is just with the lips??????? Birds chirping

[@friednotsteamed7956]

I’ve tried listening to this debate several times. The audio quality is far too poor.

[@frederickanderson1860]

We like sheep thatsgoe away. The shepherd was killed te flock scattered. Yet he rose from the dead. No pope's have risen either. Revelation of john chapter 1 v 18 who has the keys of hades and death!! Not ur pope's.

[@mythologicalmyth]

I spent the afternoon and had lunch with Collorafi and a mutual friend. His arguments are tight and compelling. Like Constantinople holds more than honorary primacy over Rus, Peter only holding simply an honorary title seems naive and prejudiced. -EO questioner

[@FredTonelli]

I hope I am not out in left field to suggest that the answer may lay in Scripture! I mean of course the relationship between Jesus and Peter, which was historical AND ontological! Why is Peter singled out by Christ AFTER the Resurrection? All the Apostles abandoned Him, even though St. John remained with Mary at the foot of the Cross. The fissure which became a huge crack in 1054 and led to the demolishing of a whole wall during the Reformation, is the doubt which crept in over the meaning of the title, not of Peter as Pope, but of Christ in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit as the One and Only Son of God! Yes, the Filioque issue. Scripture and Tradition are equally important!

[@ObsidianTeen]

What do Orthodox think of this Roman argument: "Jesus ... gave Peter the Keys to Heaven. This would be understood by contemporaries as designating Peter the Steward of Christ’s kingdom, His Seneschal. As Christ’s kingdom is eternal, so to must be the Office of Steward and it has continued down to the present day as the Petrine Office. No other was given the honour by Christ and the nature of the office is such that only one may hold it."

[@randomguy1453]

The Bishopric is the office given to Peter, he was given the keys to bind and loosen as the prototype of all Bishops, the Fathers are quite well known for holding that all Bishops are Peter (Ubi has a good florilegium that speaks to this), Peter is the prototype since he was the first Essentially, my counter is that the "Petrine Office" (as in, the Office Peter became part of as the first member) is the Bishopric, not the Papacy specifically, to counter this, one would need to demonstrate the Papacy was indeed shown to be an Office that was wholly supreme over the Bishopric, which the debate above goes over, and Ubi normally represents the Orthodox quite well (i havent finished watching yet, i will admit). I would suggest you watch the debate as I do

[@mythologicalmyth]

A 'chill' question on the interpretation of “Honorific Primacy.” Constantinople 3 states: "As for the Bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the new Rome." If St Peter and St Paul were exact equals of no effect, why did Christ give the shepherdic triadic to St Peter? Christ said to Peter (ONLY) Feed my lambs; tend my sheep; feed my sheep. Marriage is of equals (equitable salvific grace) (Male nor Female, Jew nor Greek) yet this triadic is also concisely explicated in hierarchical authoritative structure. Christian wives cannot subvert husband’s hierarchy as mere “honorific primacy” over the wife because it is explicated concisely despite attempts to falsely attribute absolute equality. I.e, “Wives, submit to your husbands in everything…respect your husbands as Christ….” Based on longitudinal canonical affirmations and praktikos, perhaps the “Primacy” of “Honor” is intended by Him to be one that is by His example: non-compulsory submission to authoritative paternal confraternity and not authoritarian jurisdictional prowess. Is it an elusively-defined test of humility grounded in the teachings of the Master? (Both for the primate and his subjects?) When you appeal, you appeal UP but never DOWN the hierarchical chain of command. The patriarchates are in descending honorific order from Christ to St Peter and so on to Constantinople and so on. Companies, organizations, military…..courts appeal from lower districts , to appellate, to SCOTUS. NEVER appealing down. The issue of EO and RC is not whether or not primacy is Apostolic but what primacy effectuates. If one cannot humbly submit to the one that sits at the front table of honor, perhaps they will come and ask him to sit at the back.

[@koppite9600]

Who sat and decided the role the Popes will follow? Peter led the whole church by himself. Peter when you turn help your brothers... Jesus

[@GuitarJesse7]

Peter led the whole church? Source?

[@koppite9600]

@@GuitarJesse7 Jesus Christ.. "Satan has sought to sift you, but I have prayed for you, Peter, and when you are turned strengthen your brothers" The office of Peter strengthens the Bishops.

[@GuitarJesse7]

@@koppite9600 I am very familiar with the passage. It does not support the claim you made. Nowhere in the New Testament does it show Peter led the whole church by himself, nor does church history or the early church fathers…unless you have some new evidence. 🤣 Your statement taken at face value actually betrays the unfortunate conclusion that RC beliefs about the papacy leads to, one where you view the Pope as a god-like emperor. Peter led the whole church by himself? Are you hearing yourself? Blasphemy! The Holy Spirit led the church on earth through all of the apostles and their spiritual children after them. And an insult to all the holy saints who gave their lives to make disciples and establish Christ’s Church here on the earth during those early years. The book is called the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of Peter. 😂 Of course there were varying levels of authority and gifting distributed amongst New Covenant priests and bishops, but that doesn’t mean there was one sole authority over the whole church. Let alone that it was Peter and that it would always be someone in Rome. The best you can get from this passage is that Peter will repent after his denial of Christ, and that he will strengthen and guide the 12 during the confusing, scary and transitional time of the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. I’m willing to grant that Peter did much more than that, but nothing to the degree of what the Papacy tried to exercise leading up to the schism, let alone the claims of Vatican 1 or 2. I would urge you to read 1 & 2 Samuel and reflect upon the parallels- the people reject leadership via God’s kingship and prophetic leaders, and instead asking for a fallible human king. And then consider the insistence for Roman Catholics to have a central figure to “lead” them, instead of the Biblical and historical model of the Church being led by the Holy Spirit and the councils of Bishops/Patriarchs/Priests. History as well as the present situation in Rome should point to the failure of the claims of Vatican 1 and 2. We don’t have that same problem in Orthodoxy because we don’t hinge our leadership on one person, and we expect as the Lord and Apostles warned that there will be wolves that sneak into leadership, but we can resist them if the faithful stay watchful of what is happening and obedient to Christ above all. RC does not have that option, and then you’re in a real conundrum (just like the man in this debate) when the Pope is clearly departing from the true faith and shows no signs of turning back.

[@kalash2874]

​@@GuitarJesse7 he ruled the church with a heavy calvanist fist

[@GuitarJesse7]

@@kalash2874 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@FredTonelli]

John, you are bending over backwards to be polite to our ‘brother in Christ’. Don’t waste your breath. In my humble opinion, his intellect has been darkened, in spite of the many facts he has memorized. I would remind him of St. Anselm’s medieval maxim of ‘faith seeking understanding’. He also seems to be mumbling his words. I’m not sure if that is to obscure our understanding, or if it’s an audio problem, in all charity.

[@mythologicalmyth]

A few years ago I spent the afternoon and had lunch with Collorafi and a mutual friend. His arguments are tight and compelling. Like Constantinople holds more -than honorary primacy over Rus,(according to Canon 32) Peter holding simply an honorary title with no obvious effect seems naive and prejudiced. (Yet I am not a papist lest I be sedevacantist and have no sacraments and parish life as they have an antipope currently). -EO questioner 😊

[@Spartan1.1.7]

what canon are you talking about specifcally? and are you sure it says “honorary primacy”? Isn’t John Collorafi a type of Sedevacantist?

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@Spartan1.1.7 It makes a distinction between the old Rome and the new Rome specifically that there is a prerogative notwithstanding honor and Premisy but are the eastern orthodox denigrating the honor and relegating the Premisy to ineffectual hyperbole? It seems if they were honest they were just say it means nothing just like protestants denigrate the holy virgin to being “just a woman “and still saying but we do honor her for bearing the God man. I think one if someone admits that the keys were given to Peter and that this meant something to the orthodox acknowledge at least an early more than honorific position of Rome by replacing the old with the new. No again I’m not a papist or I would have to be sedevacantist but it seems a burden of proof is not on the affirmative. So I’m driving but the third canon of the second ecumenical council is fundamentally connected to the other cannons that address this as well as the historical practice. What effect is having a place of honor in theology? It seems to be impractical and inconsistent with Christian theology from Genesis to Revelation and all of church history. This view perhaps is also why the Moscow patriarchate recently seems to have placed itself as the third room. So much for prerogative, Primacy, and honor

[@Spartan1.1.7]

@@mythologicalmyth okay but you still didn’t answer my question for context. Namely: "what canon are you talking about specifcally?” Which canon 32 are you talking about and from what council? I cannot look into it without context or reading the canon for myself. I’m not looking for a long answer with a lot of rambling.

[@mythologicalmyth]

I specifically said 3rd canon Second council but I’m working so I can’t cite the others at the moment. Keeping it real, your argument isn’t going to be able to provide any new information. My focus is how we as EO interpret “honorary primacy” as if it’s a ‘participation trophy”. 🥱

[@Spartan1.1.7]

@@mythologicalmyth dude, I think you shoudl chill a little. I haven’t even made an argument, and I may agree with you. Shouldn’t be too hard to not assume my motive here. and again, you misunderstood what I asked since the very beginng when you talked abotu canon 32. Which canon 32 are you talking about? I specificlaly asked in my first reply to you. If you are meaning that canon 32 refers to canon 3 of the 2nd EC, then I suggest you should be more clear in your presentation. You are not making any sense here. You might as well quote the canon you are talking about here.

[@mythologicalmyth]

What does the pen name Ubi Petrus mean to you? It seems to be a jab at St Peter or an affirmation of the Church being the Rock?