CathInfo.com

What do you think? This seems like shoddy scholarship. In the video interview with this Dr. or Fr. truly? Richard Price, he says the East did not accept a doctrinal ruling of the Roman Pontiff unless they approved it in a council from about 52:36 to 52:47.




And wait, there's more (some errors of his):

• The East did not recognize nor “believe” papal infallibility nor papal supremacy. The East did want to maintain good relations with Old Rome.
• The East regarded the Bishop of Rome as a “senior bishop” out of respect for his office.
• The East did not require papal ratification for Ecuмenical Synods, nor did the East believe that any Ecuмenical Synods required affirmation by the Bishop of Rome to be validated. The East wanted Old Rome’s approval so that decrees could be merely “circulated in the West” by Old Rome–to be of one mind.
• The East believed the Emperor called Ecuмenical Synods and instituted their decrees as law, as “God’s co-ruler” and as the “Guardian of the Church.”
• The Eastern provinces did not recognize Old Rome’s jurisdiction.

https://orthodoxidation.com/the-east-rejected-papal-claims-fr-richard-price-on-reason-theology/

No, my clown image indicates that both Latins and Greeks were guilty of politics and fomenting the Great Schism. To place all blame on one side is to live in Clown World.

The Greeks have the greater fault with actually going into formal schism. The same could be said in regard to the Protestant revolt.