Și off topic.
Acest forum este un sat fără câini!

Probabil cele 3 scaun petrine(Roma, Alexandria, Antiohia).
Mereu a avut Episcopul Romei o relatie mai speciala cu ei.

Vezi de pilda urmatoarea scrisoare a Sf. Grigorie cel Mare

Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair.

And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32).

And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21. Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you, I declare to you that I exult with great joy from knowing that you labour assiduously against the barkings of heretics; and I implore Almighty God that He would aid your Blessedness with His protection, so as through your tongue to uproot every root of bitterness from the bosom of holy Church, lest it should germinate again to the hindrance of many, and through it many should be defiled.

For having received your talent you think on the injunction, Trade till I come Luke 19:13. I therefore, though unable to trade at all nevertheless rejoice with you in the gains of your trade, inasmuch as I know this, that if operation does not make me partaker, yet charity does make me a partaker in your labour. For I reckon that the good of a neighbour is common to one that stands idle, if he knows how to rejoice in common in the doings of the other.

Furthermore, I have wished to send you some timber: but your Blessedness has not indicated whether you are in need of it: and we can send some of much larger size, but no ship is sent hither capable of containing it: and I think shame to send the smaller sort. Nevertheless let your Blessedness inform me by letter what I should do.

I have however sent you, as a small blessing from the Church of Saint Peter who loves you, six of the smaller sort of Aquitanian cloaks (pallia), and two napkins (oraria); for, my affection being great, I presume on the acceptableness of even little things. For affection itself has its own worth, and it is quite certain that there will be no offense in what out of love one has presumed to do.

Moreover I have received the blessing of the holy Evangelist Mark, according to the note appended to your letter. But, since I do not drink colatum and viritheum with pleasure, I venture to ask for cognidium , which last year, after a long interval, your Holiness caused to be known in this city. For we here get from the traders the name of cognidium, but not the thing itself. Now I beg that the prayers of your Holiness may support me against all the bitternesses which I suffer in this life, and defend me from them by your intercessions with Almighty God.

(Registrum Epistolarum, Cartea VII, Scrisoarea 40)

Deci ...chiar nu are niciun rost. Mesajul kilometric de mai sus, m-a convins.
Să vă fie rușine!
Nu mai aveți nici cel mai elementar bun simț. Dacă Adminul acestui forum taie frunză la cîini, măcar bunul simț dacă vă făcea să vă conformați unui aspect imperios al activității forumistice, acela de a scrie la subiect.

Biserica este o institutie divino-umana, este Trupul lui Hrisots, instituita de Domnul Hristos, care e si Capul Bisericii. E evident ca este infailibila in partea divina. Iar credinciosii fac si greseli, nefiind infailibili. Invatatura de credinta face parte din infailibilitate, fiind revelata de, iar Domnul nu poate gresi. In Sfanta Scriptura scrie ca Biserica este stalp si temelie a adevarului, deci pastreaza invatatura infailibila. Niciodata Biserica nu a adoptat o invatatura gresita, invatatura a ramas infailibila in toate epocile pana azi.

In primul mileniu nu se poate vorbi de afirmarea unui primat papal, in sensul pe care il stim astazi, nici macar la Roma. A fost doar o incercare de depasire a atributiilor unor papi, care incercau sa se amestece in jurisdictia altei patriarhii. Am dat scrisoarea Sfantului Papa Grigore cel Mare adresata Patriarhului Constantinopolului, primul crezand ca acesta din urma ar fi adoptat un fel de primat, fiind numit patriarh ecumenic. Pe langa faptul ca Sfantul Grigore critica vehement invatatura primatului, mai spune ca niciun papa nu a doptat asa ceva pana acum si nu s-a considerat superior cu ceva celorlalti patriarhi si episcopi. Asta in anul 595, o dovada clara ca nu a existat niciun primat papal pana atunci, nici macar la Roma. Primul amestec al unui papa in jurisdictia Constantinopolului a fost in sec. IX, dar atunci a fost o situatie mai speciala. Partizanii din Constantinopol ai patriarhului destituit s-au plans Papei Nicolae I, cerand ajutorul pentru reintoarcerea acestuia in scaunul patriarhal.

Ei, aici da, putem fi pe deplin de acord
Acel "deci", e de la tine, NU e din Scriptura.
NICAIERI in Scriptura nu scrie ca Biserica va pastra invatatura infailibila.
Sau nu stiu eu. Daca cineva imi va indica un verset, sunt gata sa ma corectez.

Eu cred ca Biserica este stalp si temelie a adevarului in sensul ca Isus Hristos este in mijlocul ei. El este Adevarul. Faptul ca El este prezent face ca Biserica insași sa fie garantul adevarului. Insa o biserica este stalp si temelie a adevarului doar in masura in care asculta de Domnul ei, Hristos Adevarul.
Nu e vorba de a adopta ci de a propovadui.
Biserica nu adopta invataturi noi ci propovaduieste invatatura cea veche.
Daca Biserica ar fi fost infailibila nu ar fi propovaduit primatul papal.
Asta cu "sensul in care il stim astazi" este o divagatie pe care nu o accept.
Vrei sa spui ca ceea ce au afirmat latinii in primul secol, in mod special legat de primat si de filioque, era infailibil?

roma a urmarit ingrijorata deviatiile bizantine sute de ani, vezi si erezia monotelita. la insistentele papei s-a facut si un conciliu in bizant unde nu mai putin de patru patriarhi au fost declarati eretici.
aia o luasera razna de tot la un moment dat, au martirizat un papa, i-am uitat numele, lui maxim i-au taiat limba si mana dreapta...

Ai primit suficiente explicatii, oricum o sa le rastalmacesti cum vrei tu, nefiind iubitor de adevar. Ai dovedit ca nu ai caracter, nu mai putem dialoga despre nimic.

Tocmaia sta spuneam, niciodata in Biserica nu s-a adoptat o erezie de catre toti membrii ei. In perioada la care te referi Imperiul Roman de Rasarit avea sub stapanire si Roma, iar imparatul adoptase acea erezie. Pornisem discutia depsre faptul ca protestantii spun ca Biserica a avut in intregimea ei mai multe invataturi gresite, sute de ani.

E a cincea oara cand spui asta si apoi iar te razgandesti.
Si putem dialoga minunat. Despre orice si despre tot.

Nu prea cred ca spun protestantii asa ceva. E o exagerare.
Protestantii afirma ca unele invataturi si practici din Biserica nu au corespuns cu invatatura apostolilor.

Dar protestantii nu puteau sti ca acele invataturi sau practici le asimilasera absolut toti crestinii. Nici vorba.
Este posibil bine, merci, ca de-a lungul secolelor sa fi existat crestini care sa nu se fi inchinat la icoane.
Prostestantii nu aveau de unde sa stie daca au existat sau nu acesti crestini.
Tu ai uitat ce greu circula informatia in vremea aia? Papii si-au proclamat primatul in anul 250 iar rasaritenii nu aflat de chestia asta decat la inceputul secolului IX.

Dupa cum afirmi aici atat de raspicat:
Pai daca Rasaritenii nu stiau, protestantii de unde sa stie ca Biserica a avut invataturi gresite in intregimea ei?

Nu prietene. Protestantii afirma ca in Biserica au fost multe invataturi bune dar si unele gresite. Dupa cum afirma si ortodocsii ca primatul papal, filioque si multe alte greseli au existat timp de secole in Biserica.

Protestantii si ortodocsii sustin practic acelasi lucru.
Ortodocsii NU au cum sa sustina ca latinii au facut greseli doar dupa ce s-au despartit.
E logica treaba: daca latinii nu ar fi gresit, nu ar fi existat nicio despartire.