1. agreed, that’s not the issue. no one is saying this.
You haven't actually shown any such thing. All you've done is say so, but you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.
So you can't, or won't answer. It shouldn't be a difficult question for you. Every time I've asked this question of Catholics they always either pretend they didn't see the question or dodge and deflect as you have done. It says a lot about your position.
You also haven't answered my earlier question about which Ecumenical Council stated that the Pope was the teacher of the whole world. If you can't back up any of your claims then it would seem you are only here to troll
Since I was knee high we prayed it.
No, you are avoiding answering the questions you were asked.
You are not centuries old
You need to look at the lists Rome had prior to the Investiture Conflict. Your modern lists have been falsified since then.
The Church has never interpreted Jesus' words the way Catholics do today.
St Chrysostom was ancient and he called the chair of Peter the teacher of all.
if this is true, why even have a council if everyone knows to just go to the Pope? why didn’t everyone just go to the Pope right away without a council since he alone can rubber stamp or override one? why wasn’t this done with Honorius or Vigilius?
no, you didn’t. you didn’t actually address the Ecumenical synods that condemned Honorius. you just asserted stuff and repeated yourself.I already explained all of that regarding Vigilius and Honorius.
Or did you miss it?
And indeed - the East did go to the Roman Pope. See St Clement 1.
I want to add in something... the others grumbled that St John would stay til the Lord came for him [ie, not be a martyr] and it's a sign, because though St John lived, the East knew the Roman Pope was the teacher even above an Apostle.
*Peter and His Titles
St Chrysostom. Peter [was and had been] acknowledged as a higher position and teacher of all.
Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/st-john-crysostom-on-the-apostolic-see/
St John Chrysostom said no such thing. You are putting your words in his mouth.
No, they inform him of their decisions, as they do for all bishops who were absent from the councils, so they can add their agreement.
Bishops don't need a council to teach. They just do.
Don't forget, " Get behind me, Satan"
Completely false. Corinth was a Roman colony in Greece. The Church there had been established by Paul who spent his last years communicating from Rome. Clement was a close companion of Paul's and was well known to the Corinthian Church. They were not in communication with the Apostle John as he was over in Ephesus or perhaps by then was exiled to Patmos. The circumstances in no way suggest they considered the Bishop of Rome to be above the Apostle John.I already explained all of that regarding Vigilius and Honorius.
Or did you miss it?
And indeed - the East did go to the Roman Pope. See St Clement 1.
I want to add in something... the others grumbled that St John would stay til the Lord came for him [ie, not be a martyr] and it's a sign, because though St John lived, the East knew the Roman Pope was the teacher even above an Apostle.
This is the primary flaw in all Catholic apologetics, that of conflating St Peter with the papacy. If St John Chrysostom says something special about St Peter then they assume he means the same for the bishop of Rome. However when St John Chrysostom says something special about one of the other apostles, it is of no importance.
If the Pope was unimportant, then why not go to St John himself, yet alive?
All this has been answered previously, so it is obvious you are simply ignoring the responses.
no one is saying he is unimportant.
not sure what you are talking about here, aside to say often times local bishops were gone to and not Rome.
again, not sure specifically what this has to do with anything, because often people did go to other bishops even ignoring what Rome wanted.
with what specific issue because oftentimes they did.
