1. Scott Hahn is correct.
(He spent the majority of his young christian life trying to disprove the very church he now clings to, and correctly, i might add)
2. The Orthodox churches throughout the early days of the church CONSTANTLY REFERRED TO THE POPE to settle issues and abided by them, even if the deny that today.
LOL
And... who gives the infallible interpretation of the Pope’s infallible interpretation?
>2. The Orthodox churches throughout the early days of the church CONSTANTLY REFERRED TO THE POPE to settle issues and abided by them, even if the deny that today.
Actually when the whole church was teaching Arianism, even the infallible Pope, Athenasius stood against this infallible magisterium with truth on his side. And Athenasius got excommunicated and exiled for his troubles.
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”]
Would an anathema be considered tyrannical terror?
Council of Chalcedon Canon 28:
“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. “
“For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.”
So privileges given to Rome were POLITICALLY and TRADITIONALLY motivated, not due to any spiritual superiority.
Jerome: “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.”
This is where Jerome is showing deference to Rome???
Gregory I:”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]
Yeah, sounds like the early church all bowed to the Pope as the premere CATHOLIC or (universal) priest. What was that about the ANTICHRIST? Was this an infallible teaching by Pope Gregory I? Or was that just his view as a private theologian?