Those aren't "derogations". The very notion that these are "derogations" falsely presupposes that the bishop of Rome does not have the authority that he has. In other words, you are begging the question by calling them "derogations".
"Name one place where Rome claims to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Can't do it?"
Vatican I. Want some more?
Vatican I never claimed that Rome had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I am amazed at these straw man. Do you really think it did claim that, or are you just pulling my leg?
Isn't that what the Vicar of Christ on Earth means, God's viceroy in effect, A? According to you guys, Christ handed over the keys to heaven to +Peter. I suppose that means the Pope gets to decide who gets in, or whether God gets out? That's not a strawman, A. That's what underlay the ecclesiological heresy which forced Rome out of The Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Revolution.
Now you pull the bait and switch. The claim was whether Rome has a "monopoly on the Holy Spirit". When I challenge that claim, you speculate about whether that's what "Vicar of Christ" means (no, it doesn't mean that). Then you construct another straw man in claiming that Christ giving the keys to Peter means that Peter gets to decide "whether God gets out". If you *do* know that it doesn't mean that, then you are intentionally constructing straw men. And if you *don't* know that it doesn't mean that, then you need to pick up a copy of the Catechism, and read it through carefully.
Then you claim that Rome is "outside of the Church".
Outside what Church? The Orthodox are not even one Church. They are a multitude of independent and autonomous Churches. Why? Because they are separated from Peter, their head and their principle of unity, which you would have seen if you had carefully studied my quotations from the fathers (which you obviously didn't, because you replied so fast), and if you had read Soloviev.
Indeed it is because you, like 1100 years of Latins before you haven't a clue what the consensus patrum says about this and ignore how the Petrine Ministry actually worked in the first 900 years of The Church.
That's an ad hominem. Engaging in ad hominems does not get us any closer to the truth or to reconciliation.
I must say that to say that the Protestant Revolution was some how or other Orthodoxy's fault is rather beyond the pale.
I didn't claim it was "Orthodoxy's fault". The Catholic Church has already admitted that there were sins on both sides (Protestant and Catholic). But there is no doubt when you read Luther, that he justified his schism by appealing to the example of the ECs.
It sounds, however, like something the Latins would say, their pope being infallible and all
That is an ad hominem and a straw man. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible simpliciter, but only under very specific conditions. Outside those conditions, popes have erred in many ways, as they themselves have admitted.
and they did say that the Protestant's revolt was in effect a revolt against God Himself.
Indeed, as Ignatius of Antioch said over and over in his epistles. Obedience to the bishop is obedience to God, for he is God's representative. It is not a zero-sum situation, just as "doing it to one of the least of these" is doing it unto Christ, but in the case of bishop, a fortiori. When Luther burned Exsurge Domine, he was scorning the rebuke of the Lord Himself.
-A8
"Those aren't "derogations". The very notion that these are "derogations" falsely presupposes that the bishop of Rome does not have the authority that he has. In other words, you are begging the question by calling them "derogations"."
Sort of post hoc, propter hoc isn't it? Rome declares the filioque dogmatic sua sponte at the Lateran and Lyons Councils, and for that matter later at Vatican I, then at Vatican I says, well dogmatically the Pope is infallible so the pope had the power back in the 1200s to unilaterally do what the councils specifically forbade, which was to change the wording of the Creed. The same applies to the dogmatic proclamations of the IC and papal infallibility itself. The determination of dogma, without question, always belonged to The Church in council, never to the pope until that authority was arrogated to himself at Vatican I. Of course, one might argue that that "power" amounts to nothing more than the designation of Rome as the first among equal sees in The Church. As it was a creation of a council, Vatican I, and merely a local council at that, an Ecumenical Council could reverse it. In any event, making changes to the Creed and declaring dogma for the entire Church is absolutely against what the Ecumenical Councils declared and as such it is a derogation of the authority of the Holy Spirit which acted through those councils. To say that because a local council said the pope is infallible, well then its OK is unacceptable and, as I said, an example of post hoc propter hoc reasoning, in other words, Romish spin.
"Vatican I never claimed that Rome had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit"
Of course it did. That's exactly what the dogma of papal infallibility means, however limited its use might be. Have you ever read the decrees of Vatican I? For the enlightenment of the lurkers here:
"# Wherefore we teach and declare that,
* by divine ordinance,
* the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
* this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
o episcopal and
o immediate.
* Both clergy and faithful,
o of whatever rite and dignity,
o both singly and collectively,
* are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
# In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
# This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
# This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]
# Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
# And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
* this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
* it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
# Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
* he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
* in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
* The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
* nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
* they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
# So, then,
* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
# faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema."
"The claim was whether Rome has a "monopoly on the Holy Spirit". When I challenge that claim, you speculate about whether that's what "Vicar of Christ" means (no, it doesn't mean that). Then you construct another straw man in claiming that Christ giving the keys to Peter means that Peter gets to decide "whether God gets out"."
and
"The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible simpliciter, but only under very specific conditions."
I think the foregoing decree of Vatican I puts to rest your positions. According to Vatican I, to be saved we must SUBMIT to the person of the pope. That's all most of us need to know. We all thought we were to submit to God.
Finally, you comment that Orthodoxy isn't even "A Church" but rather "a multitude of independant autonomous churches". We are that and as such we are The Church, not "a" Church. By the way, by your definition, every Eastern Rite Church in communion with Rome except perhaps the Ruthenians and the Maronites aren't The Church either. Or is it the magical submission to Rome which makes them The Church? That's not even Latin ecclesiology, A. I don't know what it is. You continue on with a paraphrasing of +Ignatius of Antioch. Its obvious that you believe, as Rome would have you believe, that the bishop +Ignatius is refering to is the pope. Thus, in Latin ecclesiology the fullness of The Church is found only in the Latin Church in submission to the pope, as Vatican I teaches. Orthodoxy has never accepted that and it is laughable to believe that +Ignatius in the year 97 or so was speaking of what the papacy had become by the 19th century.
"When Luther burned Exsurge Domine, he was scorning the rebuke of the Lord Himself." LOL!
Leo X certainly THOUGHT he was the Lord. Many of the abuses Luther pointed out were right on the money. Latins just don't like to be reminded of it.
"The Orthodox are not even one Church. They are a multitude of independent and autonomous Churches."
WRONG! Even though they are different, in matters of faith and doctrine they are ONE.
Let's get one other point clear: Latins chose Schism, rather than accepting the truth.
Charlemane and the Franks and all that wealth and temporal power was more important.
Rome disobeyed the anethemas of the Ecumenical Councils, and fell into heresy. I call it for what it is.