{"product":{"product_id":"1888212780","title":"Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims","price":"40.0","image_url":"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51S4VGP7VEL._SL500_.jpg","url":"https://www.amazon.com/dp/1888212780"},"comments":[{"body":"Hi, and welcome! [This book](https://www.amazon.com/Popes-Patriarchs-Orthodox-Perspective-Catholic/dp/1888212780) is the best Orthodox refutation of papal claims in the English language, and covers a lot of the quotes from the Fathers that Catholics like to use without context to support papal claims. Unfortunately, the book seems hard to find right now... (it's available on Amazon, but overpriced)","subreddit_name":"OrthodoxChristianity","author":"edric_o"},{"body":"This argument seems to have originated with Suan Sonna, a recent convert from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. I have a few observations about the argument:  \r\n(1) Assuming there is an established typology between Eliakim and St Peter, how does this lead to the Vatican 1 claims of Roman Catholicism being true (i.e., that the pope can infallibly declare dogma without consent of the Church, and that the pope has immediate and universal jurisdiction over the entire Church)? All it would establish is that St Peter has the keys to bind and loose (which is also something also given to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18-20, though it is given to Peter first).  \r\n(2) If this is really the knockdown argument for Roman Catholicism it is claimed to be, why don't we see historical attestation of it? As far as I am aware, no church father used this argument to make Vatican 1 type claims. If Roman Catholicism is true, why do they have to invent new arguments to prove their claims instead of relying on the tradition of the Church?  \r\n(3) We consistently see the Fathers judging the decisions of Popes of Rome in Ecumenical Councils (i.e. the Tome of St Pope Leo in the Council of Chalcedon, the condemnation of Pope Honorius at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, etc.) To quote Vatican 1, this should be impossible, since the Pope of Rome can declare dogma without consent of the Church: \"Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.\"  \r\nIn short, Church history is not consistent with Roman Catholicism. I’d recommend [watching this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zXs_cUSjQ) as an introduction, or [reading this book.](https://www.amazon.com/Popes-Patriarchs-Orthodox-Perspective-Catholic/dp/1888212780)","subreddit_name":"OrthodoxChristianity","author":"chiverybob"},{"body":"[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888212780](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888212780)","subreddit_name":"OrthodoxChristianity","author":"MrOscarWilde"},{"body":"You might find this book helpful: [https://www.amazon.com/Popes-Patriarchs-Orthodox-Perspective-Catholic/dp/1888212780](https://www.amazon.com/Popes-Patriarchs-Orthodox-Perspective-Catholic/dp/1888212780)","subreddit_name":"OrthodoxChristianity","author":"ChristIsRisen1"}]}