Catholicism: Criticism & Debate Thread

Are you sure he was a "ruthless anti-communist"? Pope Francis is a full-blown Marxist and Globalist. It is not hard to spot Marxism-Globalism patterns by Pope Francis when he interacted and met with LGBQT+, WEF Klaus Schwab, Barack Obama, Fidel Castro, etc.

Below is a portion near the conclusion of an extremely long detailed and well-researched article by Frank De Varona, "Pope Francis is a Marxist and a Globalist of the New World Order":


Are you aware that Pope Francis has tons of Marxists-Communists working for him in the Vatican?

The Pope’s Marxist Head of the Jesuits​


Google "dirty war in Argentina and the role of Francis". He was 100% anti communist. And my guess is he is still a fascist. Not a commie. A fascist. But this is a guess. That he was against communists in Argentina it´s a known public irrefutable fact.

As for all the LGBT nonsense:

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

It´s the law that matters. This is law. Not opinion or feelings. The code of canonical law. Doesn´t allow gay marriages. Period. No debate. Francis said this. Francis said that. What does the law say? Christal clear.

Catholics have continental law. It´s based in written texts. Not courts law.
 
Last edited:
Google "dirty war in Argentina and the role of Francis". He was 100% anti communist. And my guess is he is still a fascist. Not a commie. A fascist. But this is a guess. That he was against communists in Argentina it´s a known public irrefutable fact.
It is much deeper than that. America's Alphabet Agency was behind the coup that overthrew the government of Isabel Peron (March 24, 1976).
A certain ((()))ish U.S. Secretary of State led the coup behind the scene.

“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis I? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”​

Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

In 1973, he had been appointed “Provincial” of Argentina for the Society of Jesus.

In this capacity, Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit in Argentina during the military dictatorship led by General Jorge Videla (1976-1983).

He later became bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope John Paul II elevated him to the title of cardinal in 2001

When the military junta relinquished power in 1983, the duly elected president Raúl Alfonsín set up a Truth Commission pertaining to the crimes underlying the “Dirty War” (La Guerra Sucia).

The military junta had been supported covertly by Washington.

US. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a behind the scenes role in the 1976 military coup.

Kissinger’s top deputy on Latin America, William Rogers, told him two days after the coup that “we’ve got to expect a fair amount of repression, probably a good deal of blood, in Argentina before too long.” … (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006)


“Operation Condor”

Ironically, a major trial opened up in Buenos Aires on March 5, 2013 a week prior to Cardinal Bergoglio’s investiture as Pontiff. The ongoing trial in Buenos Aires is: “to consider the totality of crimes carried out under Operation Condor, a coordinated campaign by various US-backed Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to hunt down, torture and murder tens of thousands of opponents of those regimes.

For further details, see Operation Condor: Trial On Latin American Rendition And Assassination Program By Carlos Osorio and Peter Kornbluh, March 10, 2013.

The military junta led by General Jorge Videla was responsible for countless assassinations, including priests and nuns who opposed military rule following the CIA sponsored March 24, 1976 coup which overthrew the government of Isabel Peron:

“Videla was among the generals convicted of human rights crimes, including “disappearances”, torture, murders and kidnappings. In 1985, Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment at the military prison of Magdalena.”
 
Francis was a ruthless anti communist. Google his work with the Junta in Argentina. He burned communist books. He still is. But has to tone it down.
Francis: "If I see the gospel in a sociological way only, yes, I am a Communist, and so too is Jesus." Imagine for a minute that Francis were a Masonic infiltrator anti-pope whose job was to destroy the supernatural in Catholicism. Precisely what would he be doing differently?:unsure:IMG_4576.webp

Many might say it's already fallen given what we are seeing with Francis.

Also why the Orthodox Church has multiple patriarchs, to prevent this sort of activity from being adopted across all jurisdictions.
Also it's what invalidates Eastern Orthodoxy's claims to being the one true church of Christ. The church that Jesus Christ established is ONE in faith and government. Unity is the fundamental mark of the true Church.
Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself.
 
Francis: "If I see the gospel in a sociological way only, yes, I am a Communist, and so too is Jesus." Imagine for a minute that Francis were a Masonic infiltrator anti-pope whose job was to destroy the supernatural in Catholicism. Precisely what would he be doing differently?:unsure:View attachment 9220


Also it's what invalidates Eastern Orthodoxy's claims to being the one true church of Christ. The church that Jesus Christ established is ONE in faith and government. Unity is the fundamental mark of the true Church.
Which is why the Great Schism created by the Catholic Pope is a contradiction of your own argument...
 
It is much deeper than that. America's Alphabet Agency was behind the coup that overthrew the government of Isabel Peron (March 24, 1976).
A certain ((()))ish U.S. Secretary of State led the coup behind the scene.

“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis I? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”​



CIA was created to fight soviet union. Not russians. Soviet union. Which was a satanic jewish/elite enterprise. They are to soviet union what jesuits are to protestants. They lost their purpose with the fall of soviet union. And since then they act as a terrorist organization against their own people. Trying to survive and find a new reason to exist. Which is zero. They are vampires. Who live out of conflict sucking dead corpses blood.

Bergoglio at the time was figthing left wing rebels. Communists. With the help of CIA. Yes true. But this negates nothing. CIA back then was a grand organization. It´s stated in the article which for some reason you failed to mention. He fought communists. Bergoglio fought against reds and won.

Those commies who died would have killed and been much more atrocious to a much larger number of people. Argentina might be a shithole. But it´s not Cuba or Venezuela.

You can read what reds did to the church in Spain during civil war. It´s satanic stuff. They have no limits. It´s irrational cruelty and hatred. Evil.

Francis was also a bouncer. lol. True fact. He isn´t a commie protestant fruit.


The west needs at least a small dose of catholic (or ortho) conservative fascism. A la generalissimo. Not a dictatorship because they are too consuming. But an infusion of conservative fascism in institutions. This protestant social experiment as gone too far. And the moment they started to attack children. It´s over. I have no idea what they expect to happen with this attack on children. I think they are misjudging the backlash.


The comedian was lucky. This might be astonishing to protestants. A lot of filth coming from protestant countries. Which should be kept there. If they like it so much. Keep it to yourselves.


Generalissimo quotes:

“Let us be under no illusion. The Jewish spirit, which was responsible for the alliance of large-scale capital with Marxism and was the driving force behind so many anti-Spanish revolutionary agreements, will not be got rid of in a day.”

"One thing that I am sure of, and which I can answer truthfully, is that whatever the contingencies that may arise here, wherever I am there will be no Communism"

1719015321459.png
 
Last edited:
Don´t know if this is the right place to post. But I recommend anyone with children to take them to a procession with candles. My 8 and 12 year old loved going. They are already both baptized. If you go on a sunday. The God positive feeling coming out of the procession will follow you for the entire week.

Lourdes (France):



Fatima (Portugal):

 
You can't start an argument with stating something is and then saying it is because it was - when it is disputed by the originals who were always there and never changed their stance. You just did that with the term Pope but it's arbitrary and it doesn't even follow - you're basically arguing (literally) "take my word for it".

Peter was corrected by Paul. Peter was not the authority of the Church at Jerusalem. These all pre-date Rome. Even if you think Rome is special, it also fell, that would be like Orthodox acting like they came after Rome and expanded the church to actually a Christian Roman empire, and are somehow now more important even though the Turks conquered them and we are all looking back. They would have a better claim though, even in that bastardized logic scenario.

The Orthodox teaching is clear and supported by the Antiochians, who where the first Christians, as I've said before: all of the Apostles are universal teachers of the faith. Not one lacks anything. Bishops are taught by them and have succession AFTER them. I challenge you to claim any of the Apostles lacks authority for teaching. You will not counter this, because you can't, and Christianity would be disassembled if you did.

Roman Catholics descend from the Franco-Roman empire, which is the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither Holy nor Roman. That is the fact. The Eastern Roman empire was the Roman empire, they called themselves Roman, they were Christian, and they clearly were not closer to what people refer to as Roman Catholics today. That this is uncomfortable for modern day RCs to deal with isn't my issue, it's just a fact of history.
Peter was corrected by Paul? So? The Pope can be corrected by a fellow bishop.

Weren't Jesus' disciples the first Christians?

'All of the Apostles are universal teachers of the faith' yes but there has always been a central figure - God - Jesus and then Peter. There has always been a head (of a kind) and the Pope is a continuation of that. You can still have councils and disagreements of course. It isn't like the Pope has some kind of absolute power over everyone else but is needed for the unity of the church.

It seems even early Orthodox bishops also spoke of primacy of Rome:

A.D. 519. The Libellus of Pope St. Hormisdas, whose acceptance was the condition upon which the 6th c. Eastern churches re-entered Roman communion.

[Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, etc.” [Matt 16:18]. These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain… We condemn, too, and anathematize Acacius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Apostolic See, their confederate and follower, or those who remained in the society of their communion, because Acacius justly merited a sentence in condemnation like theirs in whose communion he mingled. No less do we condemn Peter of Antioch with his followers, and the followers of all mentioned above… Moreover, we accept and approve all the letters of blessed Leo the Pope, which he wrote regarding the Christian religion, just as we said before, following the Apostolic See in all things, and extolling all its ordinances. And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.

Denzinger and Rahner, eds., The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 73-74, qtd. in Ybarra. p. 397.

And Maximus:
A.D. 580-662. St. Maximus the Confessor.

These confines of the inhabited world, and those throughout the world who confess the Lord in a pious and orthodox manner, look straight to the most holy Church of Rome, towards her confession and faith, as to a sun of perennial light, receiving from her the bright splendor of the holy teachings of the fathers, as they were explained piously and in all purity by the six holy councils [the five ecumenical councils, plus the Lateran Council], which were inspired and dictated by God in proclaiming very clearly the Symbol of Faith. For ever since the Word of God condescended to us and became man, all the Churches of Christians everywhere have held, and hold the great Church there as their sole basis and foundation, because, according to the very promises of the Lord, the gates of hell have never prevailed over her, but rather she has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession; she opens the genuine and only piety to those who approach her piously, but closes every heretical mouth that speaks injustice.”

PG 91:137-40, qtd. in Butler and Collorafi, pp. 352-353.


A.D. 431. Profession of Philip the Presbyter at the Third Ecumenical Council.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. […]
 
Last edited:
Peter was corrected by Paul? So? The Pope can be corrected by a fellow bishop.

Weren't Jesus' disciples the first Christians?

'All of the Apostles are universal teachers of the faith' yes but there has always been a central figure - God - Jesus and then Peter. There has always been a head (of a kind) and the Pope is a continuation of that. You can still have councils and disagreements of course. It isn't like the Pope has some kind of absolute power over everyone else but is needed for the unity of the church.

It seems even early Orthodox bishops also spoke of primacy of Rome:



And Maximus:
We've talked about all of these issues before. The RC church has historically acted like the Pope has absolutely power, so again the conversation is disingenuous. You had the Avignon papacy, now you have Bergoglio - where's your unity talk now? Interestingly enough, that point is defeated as well.

What do the eastern orthodox churches lack? Now more than ever it is proven: nothing.

By the way, that doesn't mean some of those can't in the future fall into apostasy or innovation, schism, heresy, etc. The point is that they wouldn't be Orthodox at that point, again proving the main point we've made over and over here.
 
We've talked about all of these issues before. The RC church has historically acted like the Pope has absolutely power, so again the conversation is disingenuous. You had the Avignon papacy, now you have Bergoglio - where's your unity talk now? Interestingly enough, that point is defeated as well.

What do the eastern orthodox churches lack? Now more than ever it is proven: nothing.

By the way, that doesn't mean some of those can't in the future fall into apostasy or innovation, schism, heresy, etc. The point is that they wouldn't be Orthodox at that point, again proving the main point we've made over and over here.
Probably I would say unity is what the Eastern Orthodox churches lack since they are under different headings and different countries. I understand there is some sense they are canonical but not a sense of unity. And I hear even those churches possibly influenced by Zog by taking part in some sort of world council of churches. As comforting as it might be to think this is some holding ground of pure truth, it appears to not be the case.

There is a crisis in the Catholic church obviously, but I think it could bring more Christians together ultimately than the Orthodox church(es)

I would say that the Catholic church has done more to spread Christianity around the world than the Orthodox church.

Do you not think that Peter found himself in Rome and ultimately the spread of Christianity in the Western world was not part of the ultimate purpose of the Christianity? And did the Catholic church not play a greater role in that than the Orthodox church?

I understand interest in Orthodox Christianity is increasing but it still feels something more primed for Greco-Slavic nations and now the Orth-bro online culture as an addition to that.
 
Im in boulevard saint germains Paris and its surprising the amount of priests walking in the street. Even tonight walking home we crossed one.

The catholic influence in France used to be brutal. You see this gigantic buildings. And the cross evrrywher. The revolution was a curse for this country.

When talking about catholics never forget a benedict monk invented champagne. Thierry Ruinart also a catholic monk developed. Everytime you pop a bottle thank the caths.
 
Last edited:
One of my contentions with Roman Catholicism is their loose hermeneutic with the Scripture. As a result, many of their key doctrines are bolstered by typological, allegorical arguments, not necessarily Biblical ones.

For example, a Catholic would desire to apply Genesis 3:15 to Mary, but arbitrarily restrict Genesis 3:16 to Eve. The only reason you would approach the Scripture like that is if you have an overriding doctrine that you are reading into the Scripture.
 
Peter was corrected by Paul? So? The Pope can be corrected by a fellow bishop.

Weren't Jesus' disciples the first Christians?

'All of the Apostles are universal teachers of the faith' yes but there has always been a central figure - God - Jesus and then Peter. There has always been a head (of a kind) and the Pope is a continuation of that. You can still have councils and disagreements of course. It isn't like the Pope has some kind of absolute power over everyone else but is needed for the unity of the church.

It seems even early Orthodox bishops also spoke of primacy of Rome:



And Maximus:

The primacy of Peter is contradicted by the fact that the First Church of Peter is the Antiochian Church, and, a student can never surpass his master (direct quote from Jesus). Thus the Second Church of Peter (Rome) will always be below the First Church of Peter (Antioch). And Antioch says there is no such thing as a Pope with Universal Jurisdiction.

We've already been over this earlier in the thread, but for some reason you'd rather not acknowledge these facts.
 
The primacy of Peter is contradicted by the fact that the First Church of Peter is the Antiochian Church, and, a student can never surpass his master (direct quote from Jesus). Thus the Second Church of Peter (Rome) will always be below the First Church of Peter (Antioch). And Antioch says there is no such thing as a Pope with Universal Jurisdiction.

We've already been over this earlier in the thread, but for some reason you'd rather not acknowledge these facts.

There is plenty of evidence that the early Church recognised Rome as successor of Peter:
”Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” - Pope St. Damasus I, Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]
”I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” - St Jerome, Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]
”If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . .” - St. Augustine, Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]
“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” - Council of Ephesus, Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]
 
The primacy of Peter is contradicted by the fact that the First Church of Peter is the Antiochian Church, and, a student can never surpass his master (direct quote from Jesus). Thus the Second Church of Peter (Rome) will always be below the First Church of Peter (Antioch). And Antioch says there is no such thing as a Pope with Universal Jurisdiction.

We've already been over this earlier in the thread, but for some reason you'd rather not acknowledge these facts.
Well, Christ also said 'on this rock' and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

I understand your argument intellectually but I do see in scripture definitive evidence of your claim. Nor does it make sense to say that Antioch has significance when Peter himself chose to leave it.

Either you disregard Peter as 'the rock' and then the true home of Christianity would be Jerusalem, or you follow Peter's journey to Rome. Peter's CHOSEN successor stayed in Rome. But you're saying that his not chosen successor is actually head of the church? Makes no sense to me.
 
Well, Christ also said 'on this rock' and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

I understand your argument intellectually but I do see in scripture definitive evidence of your claim. Nor does it make sense to say that Antioch has significance when Peter himself chose to leave it.

Either you disregard Peter as 'the rock' and then the true home of Christianity would be Jerusalem, or you follow Peter's journey to Rome. Peter's CHOSEN successor stayed in Rome. But you're saying that his not chosen successor is actually head of the church? Makes no sense to me.

Peter's first Bishop was St. Ignatius and whose writings forms the backbone of all our understanding of apostolic succession today.

As the first Bishop, St. Ignatius taught other Bishops, including the ones in Rome, how things were done. The student can never surpass the teacher and all Bishops follow in his example.

In regards to Jerusalem, there was so much persecution there virtually all Christians had to flee to Antioch. Antioch was Jerusalem. The location is not what is important, but the people. And the Holy Spirit dwelled within the chosen Jews who started Christianity, and they first called themselves Christians in Antioch (Acts. 11).

St. Ignatius was the first Patriarch of Antioch and continued to teach every other Church how to organize and serve the Lord, just as he was instructed by his teacher, Peter.

The fundamental "Peter as rock" reality points to Antioch being the First and primary Church of Christianity, not Rome. Rome is very important - do not get me wrong - but Antioch was First and as such holds true primacy. And Antioch says that no one Bishop is to rule over any other, which is why Rome cannot use Peter to claim authority over other Churches.

In further support of these arguments, I must point to the Melkite schism created by Rome - who attempted to buy out Antiochian Bishops in the 17th Century. The Antiochian Bishops who accepted Rome's patronage, and submitted to the Pope are now known as Melkite Orthodox Christians.

This raises the question - why would Rome want to buy up Antiochian Bishops? Because the See of Rome knows that until they control Antioch, they do not fully have the authority of Peter. They are still the second Church and the real authority lies within the ancient See of Antioch, the first seat of Peter. Without that seat, Rome's authority is incomplete, and most Orthodox Bishops know this.
 
Peter's first Bishop was St. Ignatius and whose writings forms the backbone of all our understanding of apostolic succession today.

As the first Bishop, St. Ignatius taught other Bishops, including the ones in Rome, how things were done. The student can never surpass the teacher and all Bishops follow in his example.

In regards to Jerusalem, there was so much persecution there virtually all Christians had to flee to Antioch. Antioch was Jerusalem. The location is not what is important, but the people. And the Holy Spirit dwelled within the chosen Jews who started Christianity, and they first called themselves Christians in Antioch (Acts. 11).

St. Ignatius was the first Patriarch of Antioch and continued to teach every other Church how to organize and serve the Lord, just as he was instructed by his teacher, Peter.

The fundamental "Peter as rock" reality points to Antioch being the First and primary Church of Christianity, not Rome. Rome is very important - do not get me wrong - but Antioch was First and as such holds true primacy. And Antioch says that no one Bishop is to rule over any other, which is why Rome cannot use Peter to claim authority over other Churches.

In further support of these arguments, I must point to the Melkite schism created by Rome - who attempted to buy out Antiochian Bishops in the 17th Century. The Antiochian Bishops who accepted Rome's patronage, and submitted to the Pope are now known as Melkite Orthodox Christians.

This raises the question - why would Rome want to buy up Antiochian Bishops? Because the See of Rome knows that until they control Antioch, they do not fully have the authority of Peter. They are still the second Church and the real authority lies within the ancient See of Antioch, the first seat of Peter. Without that seat, Rome's authority is incomplete, and most Orthodox Bishops know this.
From what I understand Catholics and Orthodox have a different idea about the succession in Antioch. I believe the legitimate patriarch of Antioch accepts universal jurisdiction.
 
From what I understand Catholics and Orthodox have a different idea about the succession in Antioch. I believe the legitimate patriarch of Antioch accepts universal jurisdiction.

Then why have the past 70 years of Popes been making pilgrimages to Orthodox Antiochian Patriarchs? (See vids I posted earlier in this thread for evidence)
 
Then why have the past 70 years of Popes been making pilgrimages to Orthodox Antiochian Patriarchs? (See vids I posted earlier in this thread for evidence)
I think because Antioch still had a key role historically speaking.

Early Christians like St. Augustine and the Council of Ephesus add some clarity:

”If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . .” - St. Augustine, Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]
”Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” - Council of Ephesus, Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]
 
I think because Antioch still had a key role historically speaking.

Early Christians like St. Augustine and the Council of Ephesus add some clarity:

Again, if the the Patriarch of Antioch wasn't legit then why would the Pope's be directly visiting them? Total contradiction.
 
Back
Top