Skip to comments.Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
Posted on 02/06/2006 10:11:00 AM PST by AnalogReigns
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
Cyprian (200-258 A.D.)
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" [Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian"]. As James White points out, the clergy in Rome were addressing letters to Cyprian, "Pope Cyprian." It simply meant "father."
The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. [Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles"] The Council of Chalcedon, in Canon 28, declares that Rome's rank was based on its political significance rather than any spiritual superiority.
St. Jerome (342-420 A.D.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."
Gregory I (540-604)
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" and compares the man who chooses the title "universal bishop" to Satan. [Gregory I of Rome, Book V, Epistle 18, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, 12:166]
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent
As the gavel came down to close the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563, Rome had officially and, according to her own commitment down to the present moment, irreversably, declared the preaching of the Gospel in the Reformation "anathema." The most relevant Canons are the following:
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone...let him be anathema.
Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake...let him be anathema.
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life...let him be anathema.
. . .
Where Do We Stand Today?
There was a popular slogan in the middle ages, "God will not deny his grace to those who do what lies within their power." A modern equivalent might be, "God helps those who help themselves." According to recent surveys, 87% of today's evangelical Protestants affirm this view of salvation, with 77% agreeing with the statement that "man is basically good by nature." Not even at the Council of Trent did Rome tolerate this essentially Pelagian concept, and yet it is affirmed by the clear majority of the supposed heirs of the Reformation.
Therefore, this is not an exercise in bigotry, nor an attempt to renew ancient hostilities; it is a battle for the Gospel in the face of any--whether pope or evangelist, who would allow this doctrine to be hidden from those who even today will be passing from this world to face the judgment of our God and of his Christ.
Bearing the nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Church, Sacramentum Mundi is a modern encyclopedia of Roman doctrine. In its article on Justification we read that justification "implies a relation with a judgment rather than a mode of being." The term for Paul "always has a certain forensic flavour which prevents its becoming a mere synonym of regeneration or re-creation. In later theology, however, this sense is often lost, and justification comes to mean nothing more than the infusion of grace (D 799). Now when St. Paul applies the juridical terminology to the new Christian reality, it acquires an entirely new meaning. It refers now not to the future but to the past (Rom.5:9), not to the just man but the sinner (Rom.4:5). And so the basis of justification must also be different. It can no longer be observance of the law. It must be Christ, whom God has made our righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Cor.1:30), which is the same thing as saying that we are justified by faith in Christ (Rom.3:28)." [ by Ricardo Franco, pp. 239-240]
Furthermore, arguably the two most widely respected Roman Catholic biblical scholars, J. A. Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown, have recognized that justification is understood in the biblical text to mean legal acquittal and not a process of growth in inherent righteousness. "Justification in the Old Testament," writes Fitzmyer, "denotes one who stood acquitted or vindicated before a judge's tribunal...This uprightness (righteousness) does not belong to human beings (Rom. 10:3), and is not something that they produced or merited; it is an alien uprightness, one belonging to another (Christ) and attributed to them because of what that other had done for them...This justification comes about by grace and through faith" (Romans, AB 33, pp.116-19).
And yet, Roman Catholic theologian Johann Baptist Metz calls for a second Reformation precisely because he sees the immediate relevance: "The question is said to belong to another, noncontemporary world," he writes. "I do not share this position at all. The heart of the Reformation's question--How can we attain to grace? --is absolutely central to our most pressing concerns. Just look for a moment at the human person of today: a part of this late bourgeois world of ours, stretched between doubt and commitment, between apathy and a meager kind of love, between ruthless self-assertion and a weak form of solidarity, confused and more uncertain of himself than he was even a few generations ago...And we are asked to believe that this person cannot understand the cry for grace, the pressing question as to whether and how grace can come to us? I do not accept that for a moment. This second Reformation concerns all Christians, is coming upon all of us, upon the two great churches of our Christianity."
Please, let everyone be charitable...NO NAME CALLING!!!
"There'll be a hot time in the old town Tonight..."
Actually that's a good question...and probably one reason for the survey results.
Since every person is made in God's image we all have some "good" in us. However, since every person (past, present, & future) except Jesus Christ, is poluted by an inborn fallen sin-nature....being descendent of Adam, no one is purely good, which, by older definitions is the only kind of moral good...totally pure. Evil is the pollution of good...hence by that definition anything evil is partly (or even basically) good...however also BASICALLY polluted (and therefore evil) in every capacity...even in the ability to reason, desire and choose.
I think a lot of Christians if they understood that, would agree that everyone is basically a sinner....still with some "good" in us, but only in a relative sense. No one, save Christ, is purely and basically Good, in that sense.
This is a basic Augustinian understanding of the nature of good and evil.
It's threads like this one that remind me how much fun we used to have before biblewonk was banned.
Anybody else miss ol' biblewonk?
(from the same webpage as "What Can Protestants Expect from the New Pope" posted earlier by Gamecock)
Biblewonk was banned? I must have missed that thread.
I must have, too - and yes, Biblewonk is missed!
I'm curious as to Eastern Orthodox opinions of the Western Church's Reformers. I realize y'all are NOT fans of St. Augustine....on which much of the original Protestant theology was built on. (not even regarded with the title "Saint" is he? Can't say I've ever understood that attitude toward St. Augustine of the EO theologians.)
"I'm curious as to Eastern Orthodox opinions of the Western Church's Reformers. I realize y'all are NOT fans of St. Augustine...."
Please read "The River of Fire" by Alexandre Kalomiros for a great introduction to your question. It's short, 20 pages, and available on line at http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm .
The first 5 pages will pretty much cover the significant problems we have with St Augustine writings and the long term effect they've had to western theology, the eventual creation of the great schism, the Protestant fragmentation which was destined to follow, and ultimately the agressive Atheism we see in the world.
Another instance of development of doctrine, and essential to the understanding of this paper, is that of Papal supremacy. Newman tells us that the early Christians knew that they must live in unity, and recognized that they were so living. It was a sacramentum unitatis. The determination of its essence and means of securing this unity was to be supplied as necessity grew. While Christians were of one heart and one soul, it would be suspended; when unity was threatened, it was invoked. Newman says:
When the Church was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred.
With marked clarity Newman reasoned that, "if the whole of Christendom is to form one Kingdom, one head is essential; at least this is the experience of eighteen hundred years." And so:
As the Church grew into form, so did the power of the Pope develop; and wherever the Pope has been renounced, decay and division have been the consequence. We know of no other way of preserving the Sacramentum Unitatis but a centre of unity.
It was quite obvious to Newman that, even though the full deposit of faith had been given to the Apostles by Christ, and transmitted by them to the Church, there was a need of correctly understanding this deposit as conflicting opinions arose among the members of the one Church. To this end, a supreme authority was needed; otherwise, the body of Revelation would be open to endless confusion; and decay, not unity, would be the mark of the Church. This could not be since Christ had not only commanded his disciples to teach "all things that He had commanded," but also had assured them that he would be with them until the end of time (Matt. 28:18).
Newman saw that the Divine Author had intended Christianity to have "a wide expansion of the ideas proper to it"; but realized that this great benefit could be hindered by "the evil birth of cognate errors which acted as its counterfeit." He, therefore, assigned certain characteristics of faithful developments, which would discriminate them from corruptions. He defined corruption as "an incipient disorganization." It is characteristic of modern sects and of dissident theologians within the Church that they give evidence of corruption through the excesses in their conduct and the errors in their doctrine. The Church has been harassed by their innovations, but has ever revived from the force of their attacks. She is ever herself; "doctrine is where it was, and usage, and precedence, and principle, and policy." In a word, she is "incorrigible," cannot change the deposit of faith that has been given her by our Divine Savior.
As we have seen, Newman came to the overwhelming realization that the Catholic faith was logically, as well as historically, the representative of the ancient faith. As a result of his studies, he assigned certain characteristics of faithful development, as distinct from corruptions. He set down seven Notes to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its decay: (1) a one and same type of life, that is, a religion which, while developing, remains identically what it was; (2) continuity of principles, the "special laws" of a development; (3) a power of assimilation, achieving a "unitive" incorporation into the life of the faith; (4) a logical sequence, that is, a teaching that issues from its original teaching; (5) an early anticipation of future development; (6) a conserving of the course of antecedent developments, an addition which illustrates and corroborates the thought which precedes; and (7) a chronic vigor, marked by duration. These seven Notes marks of fidelity in the development of an ideaare to be applied to the current developments of Christian doctrine. And here Newman advises us to watch for "the unity and identity of the idea with itself through all stages of its development."
Augustine had it wrong. He even mistranslated parts of the original fall. The Eastern Orthodox Church has many fundamental differences with his understanding.
Many Eastern Orthodox Theologians believe that Augustines writings play a significant role in the eventual demise of the West, including the necessity for Papal Infallibility, the Protestant fragmentation, and, played to its eventual end, agressive Atheism (since the rational mind confronted with conflicting mistruth will falsely accept one, the other, or reject them both).
See http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm for a very good, yet short explaination of this problematic paradigm between EO and Western Theology.
Not by nature...as our first father before his choice to disobey, was innocent, but by descent--everyone has inheritied the trait...(almost like a mutation...)---the doctrine of orginal sin is quite a mystery--but vital to a right understanding of the gospel of the "new Adam" Jesus Christ.
Why did then THE most agressive atheistic ideology, namely Communism, find its most fertile soil...and fearful results in the lands of the Eastern Church?
Just asking, not being argumentative, and have yet to read your suggested site.
"Anybody else miss ol' biblewonk?"
I do. Why did he get banned?
"Why did then THE most agressive atheistic ideology, namely Communism, find its most fertile soil...and fearful results in the lands of the Eastern Church? Just asking, not being argumentative, and have yet to read your suggested site."
I don't take your question as argumentative...but to respond, please don't take my answer to be so either.
The same question, the Jews standing beneith our suffering Lord ask, "If you are truly the Christ, come down from the cross and we will believe?"
25 million Orthodox died in Russia for their faith during the period of time you state. If you think the Jewish Holocaust was bad, multiply that by 5.
Don't mistake, as did those mocking Christ 2000 years ago, the pursecution of His body for weakness. To the world this is a true mystery. More faithful Christians have died in the last century alone than in all the previous centuries combined since 33 AD.
But many walked away in 33 AD convienced Jesus could not have been the Christ. Many walk in the world today for the same reason...His death was weakness...His followers deaths are weakness.
I would argue that where the body of Christ is most greatly pursecuted, there you will find Christ Himself. To those that think the world has change, or that evil pursecutes Christ less in todays world...I would say that evil has won you over.
Until all the elect are identified (which will not be until Christ returns), the world will still not recognize Christ (since bad things shouldn't happen to good people...right).
All I know is some people around here regularly accused him of "bashing" Roman Catholicism. Others (maybe the same people?) insisted he's a racist (he's not).
It's a shame he's not tolerated here, though. Few people know the Bible better than biblewonk. He wasn't afraid to call it like he saw it.
Oh, and whatever his alleged infraction(s), he's not welcome to come back. Bummer.
""Why did then THE most aggressive atheistic ideology, namely Communism, find its most fertile soil...and fearful results in the lands of the Eastern Church?"
O, and I must add this too...
If you read the "River of Fire" that I recommended you'll find that the path away from true orthodox teaching (at least theologically) is first through the deception of Sola Scriptura, ex cathedra, and prideful ego (to which Rome submitted and fully realized by 1054).
Based on this great error, it was only a matter of time before the individual man would ask the same question (especially in light of the errors of Rome)...if he can do it why not me?
But then it comes full circle...
Now man separated from the true Body of Christ and following his own was is worse off then in the beginning. He resents the beginning, frustrated by the failures of his ways, the continuing disillusionment of fragmentation, disunity, numerous exclusive interpretations of the same scripture...he begins to believe there is no God, no unity, no truth, and the one holy catholic and apostolic church is just one of 25,000 others. That all are enslaved by a belief that there is a God...finally persecuting that which he lost by pride.
Why was Russia so persecuted; because Judas is still alive in the world (figurative for those literalist reading this). Ultimately so discouraged, that persecution is the only means to satisfy a profound emptiness.
Again, dont mistake that fact that Judas can exist in the presence of Christ as a sign that both are from the same tree.
"I would argue that where the body of Christ is most greatly pursecuted, there you will find Christ Himself. "
Then He is in China.
"Until all the elect are identified (which will not be until Christ returns), "
Are you Orthodox?
"Ultimately so discouraged, that persecution is the only means to satisfy a profound emptiness."
Now there is a truly new concept to me. Very interesting.
All the quotes you posted indicate is that the bishop has the primary jurisdiction and that the bishops, heirs of the Apostles, are equal in honor. The Church agrees. (We need to see the context before we can understand what the "universal priest" is supposed to mean; on the face of it, it does not apply to the pope since the Eucharist consecrated by the pope has no qualities or essence distinct from the Eucharist consecrated by any other priest).
To see a reasonable criticism of the post-1054 papacy, as well as informed reading of the fathers, one needs to go the an Orthodox source. But then, of course, one would have to remember that the modern papacy developed, very unfortunately, in near isolation from the Eastern bishops and served primarily the needs of the West.
As to the question where the Reform movement stands today, I applaud your interest in finding that out. Let us know when your are done.
In the spirit of scholarly discussion.
I will confess to being a bit confused as to the structure of the article, the beginning does not link to the end...any from a reformed perspective....assuming "Sola Scriptura" why should the average reformed individual really care what the early fathers had to say as it is not contained in the Cannon of scripture?
It would have been better (and less liable to rile folks) had it focused exclusively on "Sola Gratia" and the statistics on the reformed movement that it supplies.
Just an observation.....
the an Orthodox -> to an Orthodox
" 'I would argue that where the body of Christ is most greatly persecuted, there you will find Christ Himself. ' Then He is in China. 'Until all the elect are identified (which will not be until Christ returns), ' Are you Orthodox?"
Christ is God and is therefore in all places and fills all things. So the question, "Is Christ in China" can be answered by asking a similarly difficult question "Is Christ in Hell?"
An Orthodox would answer both "Yes".
Like a deep depression is a state of mind, Hell is a state of soul in the presence of Grace (not hard to see in the world today when people truly hate God who has only done wonderful things for them). The depth of sin however is far more reaching than death for Christ raised faithful Lazarus from death (in concert with Lazaruss will), but not the unfaithful Judas from willful sin (which is against not Christs will, but against Judass will).
Hell is a place where Christ continues to knock on the door of the soul but it will never open. Lazarus opened the door, Judas will not but Christ will eternally continue to reach out to both.
Where is the Church and who is saved? (Your questions just asked a bit more bluntly since it seems to be a residual question that lingers from Protestant-Roman Catholic confrontations)...Orthodox would answer "We know where the Church (and its fullness) is, but not where it is not". There are many Orthodox that will not be saved (as there were disciples unsaved...Judas...even though the fullness of the Truth was contained in Christ). There will be many non-Orthodox saved, who hear the voice of God, and respond in Truth (yet I would argue not to read to much into this, or to base your salvation on it, since Truth will be recognized by the faithful when it is presented...such as the thief on the cross).
Am I Orthodox (which literally means right worship) I would answer
I hope so.
Yes and no. I know Cyprian is very popular in Orthodox apologetics, so you could suggest that it is a defense of Orthodox Ecclesiology, but there are one or two things further down that are incompatible with the Orthodox Faith
(I will confess to never seeing any scholarly articles on the concept of Grace within the Eastern traditions though)
Also if you notice the footnote on Cyprian's use of the title "Pope" you'll find it vague. If I recall correctly he was Bishop of Alexandria which used that title...so I have some questions as to the authors historical knowledge.
"...why should the average reformed individual really care what the early fathers had to say as it is not contained in the Cannon of scripture? "
Well, maybe one arguement would be that it was the Fathers of the Church that "were lead by the Holy Spirit" to both write and define what the Cannon of Scripture was.
It is a pretty weak argument to assume that you are lead by the Holy Spirit when in the same breath you'd expect that because the Law was written by Moses and replaced by Christ, Moses should not have been standing on the same hill with Christ during the Transfiguration.
I would argue that the Church Fathers will be standing in Christ's glory far before any of us. And it might be a good idea before throwing out the baby with the bathwater that you really understand the theological significance of what you're throwing out. It was the Orthodox Church Fathers that gave you the scripture you hold in your hands today. It was the Orthodox Church Fathers that gave their lives for what you take for granted.
Here is an arguement that you'll not find the Roman Catholic Church using often:
If the Pope (Bishop) of Rome is infallible, then Pope Leo the Great's tome concerning infallibility must be infallible. Yet it was an arguement against infallibility.
It's like trying to reconcile error with error. It does not work.
Very little, and often nothing, of what any pope speaks or writes is infallible. To be infallible a statement must be made in consensus of all the bishops who are in communion with Rome on matters of faith and morals and it should make clear that the pope intends it to come from the Chair of Peter and not from him as a private theologian. I don't know enough to say the Leo the Great's book is infallible, and I don't know enough to say that it contradicts the doctrine of infallibility rightly understood; do you?
"It's like trying to reconcile error with error. It does not work."
Please, let's not start confusing ourselves with the facts.
You kind of lost me with this post...not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
While not really germaine to my comments...the document which you refer to is not an "ex-Cathedra" statement and therefore doesn't pertain to the infallibility issue.
I'm really very confused as to why you threw that out there......
"Very little, and often nothing, of what any pope speaks or writes is infallible."
Quantity has very little to do with it. Filioque, although inserted many years before the more refined doctrines of infallibility, was none the less inserted into the Nicene Creed (itself well defined statements of the entire body of Christ...including the Roman Bishop) with the spirit of infallibility. Theologians could argue that it was this prideful spirit which innovated this insertion into Christ words that ultimately necessitated the need to claim Papal infallibility.
Mechanics of infallibility are equally meaningless. St Peter, when siding with the Circumcision, was rebuked by St Paul (see Gal 2:11-16). And yet, even a millennium after the erroneous Filioque entry, which Rome ultimately had to justify with infallibility, which Rome realized later was not in the original language used by any of the Gospels, has yet to repent and set the record straight.
The point is, you cannot use the vast cumulative output of the popes to look for statements that infallibly deny infallibility, as you attempted.
I do not think the dual procession of the Holy Ghost has been defined infallibly. Further movement on this doctrine is possible, and, given some intriguing passages in the recent Deus Caritas Est, likely.
The struggle between the Ultramontanists (those who believe in papal supremacy) and the decentralists (those who do not) is as old as the Church itself.
So is good and evil (as old as the church). What is the point you're making? Because it's an old argument one should pass over it?
In a simplistic view, it was Truth that was sacrificed on the Cross (I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life).
Are we to continue to sacrifice Truth or defend it? To deny it or affirm it? To lose faith in it (or it's existence) or to believe in it?
Truth exists and has NEVER failed...look for it. Hint: It is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8).
No, in fact the complaints began in earnest after the split over the filioque in 1054, and especially when the West, under assault from the neo-iconoclast anticlerical Protestants developed an assertive style of papacy, understandably unpalatable to the East, but indispensable in the West. Prior to 1054 there has been remarkably little controversy regarding papal primacy, if you discount off-the-cliff heretics, of course.
I can see where people would get the anti-Catholic thing (though its not like he was Jack Chick or anything) but racist??? I never read anything he posted that was racist.
"(I will confess to never seeing any scholarly articles on the concept of Grace within the Eastern traditions though)"
Read +Gregory Palamas and his writings on created vs uncreated grace (energies).
"(I will confess to never seeing any scholarly articles on the concept of Grace within the Eastern traditions though)"
Read +Gregory Palamas and his writings on created vs uncreated grace (energies).
I don't recall anything racist, and although I think he was obnoxious, there was no reason to ban him. I am surprised he was, I thought he disappeared tired of his one-trick-pony routine.
Maybe he got raptured?
Poor thing. Imagine going through Heavens like this:
St. Agness. Pleased to meet you. Biblewonk. Where are you in the Bible?
St Anselm. Pleased to meet you. Biblewonk. Where are you in the Bible?
"I do not think the dual procession of the Holy Ghost has been defined infallibly."
Sure it was, at Nicea, Alex. But that doesn't end the discussion, AMHN. Where the problem has been for the past 1000 years or so has been with the West's own, often theological and hierarchial if not papal, attempts to justify filioque with novel theology. The understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the East has always been as stated by +Gregory Palamas in the 13th century:
"The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or 'eros' experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:'I was She who rejoiced together with Him' (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply 'rejoiced' but 'rejoiced together with'. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God's image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it."
So far as I know, and I base this on the comments of the Roman and Orthodox theologians who together came up with an agreed statement on the Creed, this is the precise and correct meaning of the filioque for Roman Catholicism. Thus the Roman Church has apparently agreed that the Creed without the filioque is "normative" and should be what is used for translations and catechesis.
The filioque started out as an attempt to counter Arianism. Its imposition on the Church by Rome was at a minimum misguided and I think, AMHN, you may be right that it at least in part lies at the base of medieval claims of papal supremacy. Remember that in the False Union of Florence, Orthodoxy was not required to accept the filioque. By the time of the Reformation, Rome had reason to harden its positions about papal supremacy, but they weren't cvoming from the East.
Frankly, AMHN, the filioque is only an issue if Rome insists on a dual procession of the HS...and if it really ever did, it doesn't now.
so who was the first Pope?
To whom did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom? (And yes, it's in the Bible!)