~5:30. No, we've read and heard those words many times, and looked at them from several angles. They certainly don't make the Orthodox apoplectic. What's confusing is the logical leap of the Keys from Peter, to all the bishops who succeeded him, specifically and only in the city of Rome. In the Orthodox realm, both the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem also have Petrine succession (yes, there are multiple successors to Peter!), and the See at Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, on direct commission by St. Peter. Despite doctrinal disputes, the only special claims to Roman authority based on St. Peter came several hundred years later. To begin with no one ever acted as though succession from St. Peter was much of anything special. Heck, Pope Honorious I was even anathematized as a heretic by Church council!

And I know where that will go from there... Pope Honorious I was not speaking ex cathedra, and was therefore not a heretic. However, the legal term ex cathedra did not exist until much later, and he was truly considered a heretic and anathematized as such (even in Rome) until this became inconvenient for growing Papal claims to authority.

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

~5:30. No, we've read and heard those words many times, and looked at them from several angles. They certainly don't make the Orthodox apoplectic. What's confusing is the logical leap of the Keys from Peter, to all the bishops who succeeded him, specifically and only in the city of Rome. In the Orthodox realm, both the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem also have Petrine succession (yes, there are multiple successors to Peter!), and the See at Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, on direct commission by St. Peter. Despite doctrinal disputes, the only special claims to Roman authority based on St. Peter came several hundred years later. To begin with no one ever acted as though succession from St. Peter was much of anything special. Heck, Pope Honorious I was even anathematized as a heretic by Church council!

And I know where that will go from there... Pope Honorious I was not speaking ex cathedra, and was therefore not a heretic. However, the legal term ex cathedra did not exist until much later, and he was truly considered a heretic and anathematized as such (even in Rome) until this became inconvenient for growing Papal claims to authority.

Are you an Eastern Orthodox?

Yes :)

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

~5:30. No, we've read and heard those words many times, and looked at them from several angles. They certainly don't make the Orthodox apoplectic. What's confusing is the logical leap of the Keys from Peter, to all the bishops who succeeded him, specifically and only in the city of Rome. In the Orthodox realm, both the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem also have Petrine succession (yes, there are multiple successors to Peter!), and the See at Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, on direct commission by St. Peter. Despite doctrinal disputes, the only special claims to Roman authority based on St. Peter came several hundred years later. To begin with no one ever acted as though succession from St. Peter was much of anything special. Heck, Pope Honorious I was even anathematized as a heretic by Church council!

And I know where that will go from there... Pope Honorious I was not speaking ex cathedra, and was therefore not a heretic. However, the legal term ex cathedra did not exist until much later, and he was truly considered a heretic and anathematized as such (even in Rome) until this became inconvenient for growing Papal claims to authority.

Are you an Eastern Orthodox?

Nothing orthodox about him. The term is Oriental Schismatic.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

~5:30. No, we've read and heard those words many times, and looked at them from several angles. They certainly don't make the Orthodox apoplectic. What's confusing is the logical leap of the Keys from Peter, to all the bishops who succeeded him, specifically and only in the city of Rome. In the Orthodox realm, both the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem also have Petrine succession (yes, there are multiple successors to Peter!), and the See at Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, on direct commission by St. Peter. Despite doctrinal disputes, the only special claims to Roman authority based on St. Peter came several hundred years later. To begin with no one ever acted as though succession from St. Peter was much of anything special. Heck, Pope Honorious I was even anathematized as a heretic by Church council!

And I know where that will go from there... Pope Honorious I was not speaking ex cathedra, and was therefore not a heretic. However, the legal term ex cathedra did not exist until much later, and he was truly considered a heretic and anathematized as such (even in Rome) until this became inconvenient for growing Papal claims to authority.

Are you an Eastern Orthodox?

Nothing orthodox about him. The term is Oriental Schismatic.

And, to keep things fair, you're a Roman Schismatic... if you're a sedevacantist, you've added de-facto schism with the current broadly-accepted Roman Church to an already de-facto and de-jure schism with the Orthodox, so we're separated by two degrees of schism. What a mess!

I'll take Bishop Sanborn's words on the Papacy over any Eastern Orthodox proselytizer's.  
Sorry Nick, you're just blowing in the wind.

Ok, then for your sake I hope that Bishop Sanborn is a genuinely solid authority, within the Church that Christ founded, and has the fullness of the Apostolic Faith. :)

~5:30. No, we've read and heard those words many times, and looked at them from several angles. They certainly don't make the Orthodox apoplectic. What's confusing is the logical leap of the Keys from Peter, to all the bishops who succeeded him, specifically and only in the city of Rome. In the Orthodox realm, both the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem also have Petrine succession (yes, there are multiple successors to Peter!), and the See at Alexandria was founded by St. Mark, on direct commission by St. Peter. Despite doctrinal disputes, the only special claims to Roman authority based on St. Peter came several hundred years later. To begin with no one ever acted as though succession from St. Peter was much of anything special. Heck, Pope Honorious I was even anathematized as a heretic by Church council!

And I know where that will go from there... Pope Honorious I was not speaking ex cathedra, and was therefore not a heretic. However, the legal term ex cathedra did not exist until much later, and he was truly considered a heretic and anathematized as such (even in Rome) until this became inconvenient for growing Papal claims to authority.

This is not true, there was not enough evidence to conclusively say whether he was an anti-Pope or not. St. Francis De Sales for example puts it as a great possibility in his Controversies with the Protestants, the same goes with some other theologians that have touched on the subject. The same goes with Liberius, given that their heretical deeds were very limited and possibly even obscure, they were still condemned for the little bit that they had done. Whether it was a sin by omission or actively participating, we have to remember that now we have instant communication this is why it took so long to anathematize people. The Church always made sure to know for certain whether a man was a formal pernicious heretic, she always gave the benefit of the doubt to the person. So whether Honorius was a heretic or Liberius (the two most famous cases we have), were really anti-Popes it changes nothing with respect to the papacy. We already have several principles laid down from St. Cyprian who dealt with Anti-Pope Novatian, St. Jerome and many other Father's said the same thing. Read the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine particulary De Romano Pontifice, it will teach you a lot about the nature of the papacy. Anti-Popes have 0 binding authority to the faithful. It is also interesting how you call Honorius Pope, why not just Bishop of Rome. By giving him this title which has always been historically tied with the primacy of the See of St. Peter, you only give more credence to our arguments that you make absolutely no sense. Collegiality does not equal historical Christianity, does not equal Apostolic tradition... Even more serious Orthodox scholars will admit that St. Peter had primacy over the whole Church, the difference is that this did not carry over to his successors, but even they recognize that they are definitely lying somewhere.

The term transubstantiation did not exist until the Middle Ages, yet it is a reality that happens at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Ex cathedra simply means Peter speaking through his successors to the Universal Church. If the Pope makes a comment on the moon, it is obviously not subject to the Holy Spirit. If he makes an authorative comment on faith/morals that is to the Universal Church and not some particular Church, then it would have a binding nature to it and thus have the protection of the Holy Spirit. Very rarely does the Pope speak to the Universal Church, but if he ever needs to settle a matter that is disputed he can be guaranteed to speak infallibly on the matter.