/lit/ - Literature

>>18547291
>Regarding the Catholicism/Orthodoxy issue, is there really a definitive answer as to which is the most authentic as per Matthew 16:18?
I think the question of whether or not Catholicism or Orthodoxy is true comes down to a historical argument. I don't think the oriental churches are legitimate since they reject the Council of Chalcedon, which makes no sense considering that they also accept the Council of Nicaea (why reject the following councils?). Orthodox claim that the papacy isn't divinely instituted and doesn't have universal jurisdiction, it is only first among equals. I am still looking into it at this moment but I find the catholic argument much more satisfactory considering Matthew 16:18 (although I am sure some orthodox will claim this to be a circular argument). Granted I am also partly biased towards the Catholic side since I was raised as a traditional Catholic, but right now I have been watching and reading some of Erick Ybarra's stuff on YouTube. Might be insightful to you if you're interested.

https://youtu.be/pkIfo15jV-8

As of now the arguments I have seen from the Orthodox side is the circumstantial argument, that is, the papacy is not divinely instituted but only rose to prominence because they were in Rome and that Vatican I was not seen in the early Church. They also argue that Canon 6 of of Council of Nicaea refutes universal jurisdiction.

Catholics will usually argue that the east recognizes the indefectibility of the pope in the third Council of Constantinople in response to Pope Agatho's letter to the emperor, and that Peter is recognized as the head of the Church by the fathers. There is also the argument that the Pope is given immediate jurisdiction in the Council of Serdica where the Pope is allowed to mediate between certain bishops in disputes (canons 3,4,7).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Serdica
>Canon 3c: if a bishop is convicted of an offence by a verdict in a case, and if the convicted bishop objects to the verdict and seeks recourse by asking for reconsideration, then the bishops who judged the case – the trial court – should "honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle" and write to the bishop of Rome about the case; if the bishop of Rome – the court of second instance – decides that the case should be retried, then "let that be done, and let him appoint judges;" if the bishop of Rome decides that the case should not be retried, then he shall confirm the verdict

Vatican I was for sure a development of doctrine, and it is true that many of the fathers probably did not believe in the universal jurisdiction of Rome, but so did many of the fathers not consider Monothelitism, Monophysitism, or Palamism which the orthodox hold. Development of doctrine is crucial to all of Christianity (John Henry Newman talks about this in "An essay on the development of Christian doctrine").