Reminder to all the DEUS VULT larpers

Reminder to all the DEUS VULT larpers.

Other urls found in this thread:

thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/25256-catholics-ask-trump-to-probe-soros-obama-clinton-conspiracy-at-Vatican
wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33558
breitbart.com/national-security/2017/03/08/italian-archbishop-suggests-pope-benedict-xvi-resigned-obama-pressures/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>carrying on a tradition set by Jesus
>bad

Shoo shoo Jew

>Worships a jew
>Calls other people jews

>worships a dead jew
>calls someone a "jew" in a derogatory way
what did he mean by this?

Wtf I hate Logos now

Ran out of arguments I see

Halfway through St. John's gospel the word "Jew" ceases to be an ethnic term and takes on the meaning "rejector of Christ". Your argument rests on the false premise that Jesus was simply a 1st century Jewish man and not the Son of God, the Logos incarnate, the source of all creation who has existed from the beginning of time. To deny Logos is to deny all order to the universe, and in that sense you are no different than a Jew, and your worldview has no legs to stand on.

Why is the Popepe washing Seals feet?

In 1309 AD, the seat of the papacy was moved from Rome to Avignon (France). In total, 7 Popes were seated in Avignon until 1377 AD when the seat was moved back to Rome. The entire justification for papal supremacy is based on the claim that there is an unbroken line of Bishops of Rome from St. Peter... except that line was broken during the Avignon Papacy over 700 years ago. The Papist Church is a false church.

Are you actually going to defend that faggotry? Wow. How many muslim feet have you kissed, you faggot?

...

fuck your book of lies and fuck your kike prophet

They still were the Bishop of Rome, elected in the manner in which Popes were elected at the time. They still had administrative authority over the both diocese of Rome and the entire Church. They just weren't physically there.

The US Presidency wouldn't cease to exist if the White House was moved from DC to Ohio for a few decades.

Check out Eastern Orthodoxy.

But when the Council of Chalcedon (an ecumenical council accepted by the Roman Catholic Church) in its 28th canon elevated the Bishop of New Rome (colloquially known as Constantinople) to enjoy equal honor and privileges as that previously enjoyed by the Bishop of (old) Rome, this does not constitute the authority of St. Peter simply moving to a new geographical location? Papist childfuckers are so full of shit.

Catholicism = Communism

it's okay i can just follow an heresy or make my own interpretation

Hope you don't mean us, our church is corrupt as fuck.

Why are Christians suppose to take a proven Soros bought faggot "representing Christianity" seriously anymore then pagans and their Odin drinking cum?

>proven Soros bought faggot
Post proofs please (not disagreeing with you, just need memes for my Catholic hate folder).

Back a hundred years ago, you would of been publically executed by Christians for heresy.

>changing locations breaks the line of Apostolic succession

A fucking leaf

> Odin drinking semen
> Literally ONE book written by (((David F. Greenberg)))
> Now considered the truth by Sup Forums

Let's imagine there's a dark power ruling the earth, a malevolent deity, let's call him Yahweh, he woudl have his very own people dedicated to evil, let's call them jews, to whom he would give power and riches so they can rule the Earth.
This malevolent creature would fool people into worshipping him by masquerading behind a religion of light and behind an alleged great prophet, let's call him Jesus.
Let's imagine that this belief buttwrecks bot kikes and christkikes alike, not only does it remove the mask of kikes but it also enrages christians to no end.
Pic related, a christian so butthurt about gnosticism he advocates for murder.

There you go.

thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/25256-catholics-ask-trump-to-probe-soros-obama-clinton-conspiracy-at-Vatican

wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33558

breitbart.com/national-security/2017/03/08/italian-archbishop-suggests-pope-benedict-xvi-resigned-obama-pressures/

That Council elevated Constantinople to #2 behind Rome. Its line of succession goes back to St. Andrew, Peter never went there. Also the whole "New Rome" thing was a Constantine meme and had nothing to do with the Church, the Eastern Orthodox take it seriously though because they are Caesaropapists and its their main claim to importance.

St. Peter founded the Church of Antioch (the place where the disciples were first called "Christians") and was the first bishop there, and there is an unbroken line of Bishops of Antioch from St. Peter to today, but the Roman Catholic Church does not claim that the authority of St. Peter rests with the seat of the bishop in Antioch, instead they claim that it rests specifically in Rome, so geographical location seems to matter (when it's convenient).

Because he's the Pope, you silly faggot. He was elected by a bunch of cardinals.

God bless our holy Father, Pope Francis. Your pathetic attempts to discredit our Holy Catholic Church every single day are none but mere inconvenience.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

This guy knows his shit

>he hasn't taken the antipope pill

>would of
>publically
>christcuck
Is there a more embarrassing on Sup Forums group than Amerifats?

Also your pathetic attempts of flinging dirt unto our Holy Church are futile, because you know your goal is simply discrediting the Church although you know that you are 100% wrong.

God bless you heretics and blasphemers so that you might be redeemed one glorious day. Start by praying the Rosary.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

>catholicuck

"New Rome" was the official name of the new capital of the Roman Empire, it is no more a meme than (old) Rome founded and named by pagans. The Council of Chalcedon decreed in the 28th canon that New Rome "should be magnified also as [old Rome] is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs" and enumerated the specific authority that the Bishop of New Rome has that the Bishop of (old) Rome does not have.

>back a hundred years ago
That´s 3 mistakes in one single sentence. Please don't reproduce.

He also said "would of been".

Genesis 32:30 : I saw God face to face
1 John 4:12: No one has ever seen God

>Peter never went there
Peter never went to Avignon either.

Just because he started more than one church does not mean his bishops all had the same status. He was martyred in Rome and named his successor in Rome.

"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus." - Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)

Besides, there are currently 5 Antiochian patriarchs, 3 of them are in communion with Rome, one is Eastern Orthodox and one is Oriental Orthodox.

False Idols are not to be followed, dipshit.

2 Peter 2:1
However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring destructive sects and will disown even the owner that brought them, bringing speedy destruction among themselves.

And publically
Memes aside, he should kill himself.

>Vatican II = all christians
Nice try, schlomo

Humility is a Christian virtue. Really, Deus vult LARPers would be better off as pagan LARPers.

The empire moving its capital has nothing to do with the Church.

From canon 28 "the bishop of Constantinople... shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome"
>after the bishop of Rome

You should abandon this argument, not even Orthodox are stupid enough to make this argument. Even they admit if there was a reunion the bishop of Rome would be "first among equals".

You're one to talk Britain.

I'm glad my writing triggered a little fucking faggot like you. Whine some more, please.

>t. christcuk

>Just because he started more than one church does not mean his bishops all had the same status.
St. Peter did not think he had the authority the Pope now claims for himself. In his own words, St. Peter explains that the rock/stone (KEPHA in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke) on which Jesus will build his Church is Jesus Christ himself:
>Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
>1 Peter 2:4-5

>named his successor in Rome
He named his successor in Antioch also.

>Besides, there are currently 5 Antiochian patriarchs, 3 of them are in communion with Rome, one is Eastern Orthodox and one is Oriental Orthodox.
Only one Patriarch John X of Antioch is the legitimate successor in one continuous unbroken line from St. Peter.

This faggy pope will be the first one to go when the crusades start again.

the pope is a satanist,first thing we need to do is wipe the vatican off the map

There are many references to rocks or stones, Peter using a metaphor does not negate his authority. Even St. John Chrysostom (The Eastern Orthodox Church's #1 guy and bishop of Constantinople) did not deny Peter's authority—"Peter was to be entrusted with the keys of the church, or, rather, he was entrusted with the keys of heaven, and he was to be entrusted with the multitude of the people....That Peter the head of the apostles, the unshaken foundation, the unbroken rock, the first in the Church, the unconquerable port, the unshaken tower...he who was to be entrusted with the Church, the pillar of the Church, the port of the faith, Peter, the teacher of the whole world...Peter, that column, that bulwark."

>He named his successor in Antioch also.

Except Linus was the Pope and Evodius was not.

>Only one Patriarch John X of Antioch is the legitimate successor in one continuous unbroken line from St. Peter.

Begging the question, what makes you say John X and not the Syriac guy? The only universally recognized line of succession goes up to the 6th century, from there it splinters into several groups. The truth is the line of succession has been broken for the Orthodox. The Orthodox Church were cucked by the Ottomans for centuries where the Sultans chose the patriarchs and they chose the most anti-Catholic ones they could find to keep the Eastern church divided and weak. Catholics say their apostolic succession is still valid but really they're just trying to be nice.

Your mental gymnastics are almost as bad as leftists.

>The empire moving its capital has nothing to do with the Church.
From canon 28:
>Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her.
Sure doesn't sound like "nothing".

>You should abandon this argument, not even Orthodox are stupid enough to make this argument. Even they admit if there was a reunion the bishop of Rome would be "first among equals".
"First among equals" is not the same thing as papal supremacy.

>from Jesus
Fuck off cathlocunt

>God reveals himself in one way

>as coming next after her, or as being second to her

#2, like I said

>"First among equals" is not the same thing as papal supremacy.

Right, the point is that nobody would try to make the case that if there was a reunion, Rome would be #2 behind Constantinople.

this is cringy

Holy shit, this was hard for me to read and I'm used to pitiful Norgenglish. Learn some basic grammar, Jeff.

>Humility is a Christian virtue.

This this this.

Jesus died for and loves everyone and you should too.

>#2, like I said
But unlike your outright lie, the canon emphatically states that the primacy of Rome and New Rome has everything to do with their being the imperial capital and nothing to do with any other claims about succession coming from St. Peter.

>Right, the point is that nobody would try to make the case that if there was a reunion, Rome would be #2 behind Constantinople.
Primacy on which the Church Fathers, the councils, and Tradition agree is not the same thing as supremacy which is what the Pope claims.

D'aww

>Even St. John Chrysostom (The Eastern Orthodox Church's #1 guy and bishop of Constantinople) did not deny Peter's authority
In his exegesis on Matthew 16:18, St. John Chrysostom writes:
>Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The whole deus vult thing is bullshit. Muslims never oppressed christians in the holy land, Urban wanted the crusades to bring latin and orthodox faiths back together and the princes of the crusade latched onto it for pure personal gain.

Baldwin, the first king of Jerusalem, not only had Muslim courtiers and vassals but his Christian troops fought alongside Muslim troops against petty shits like Tancred and Bohemond (oddly enough the Normans are the Nazis of the crusading period due to their hateboner for the Byzantine empire) on some occasions. Even though he was a legit psychopath and man of very little morals he never persecuted muslims. Later, shittier kings sometimes did.

Saladin actually protected the non-mainstream christian denominations and humiliated the big ones after he took Jerusalem but again, freedom of worship was guaranteed.

TL;DR you faggots know next to nothing about the crusades

St. John Chrysostom also said of the Church of Antioch:
>It is a prerogative of the dignity of our city [that is, Antioch] that, from the beginning, it received as master the prince of the apostles. In fact, it was a just thing that this city – which was glorified by the name of “Christians” before the rest of the earth – should receive as shepherd the prince of the apostles. When we received him as master, however, we did not keep him forever but rather yielded him to the royal city of Rome. Therefore, we do not hold the body of Peter, but we hold the faith of Peter as we would Peter himself. As a matter of fact, as long as we hold the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.
Sure doesn't sound like he thinks St. Peter's "authority" rests with Rome alone (but neither do Roman Catholics as evidenced by the Avignon Papacy).

You misunderstand me, I am saying that Constantinople being dubbed "New Rome" was an imperial decision and not a Church decision, which is the truth. The canon was simply reacting to this and elevating the status of Constantinople because it became the imperial capital (but not elevating it above Rome).

You said here that the council gave "specific authority that the Bishop of New Rome has that the Bishop of (old) Rome does not have" and this is COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG AND STUPID OF YOU TO SAY, ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

>Muslims seize the Holy Land through imperialism
>Start Jewing the Jews and Christians with extra taxes to fund more Muslim imperialism
this is reason enough to hate them forever js
>Enslave Christians
>Destroy Christian and Pagan monuments
>Be dicks

Yes, not on the man himself, but the strength of his confession. But if you're going to use this as evidence it contradicts what you said here. Also it doesn't change the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

I feel like Byzantium was the only somewhat true Christian state in the old times.

It always had that melancholic, deeply religious vibe and even though the byzantines were up to some nasty shit there's tons of cases where the deposed emperor would be all like yeah fuck this shit I'm gonna be a monk the rest of my days and people were fine with it. Some became high ranking church officials again that way.

Soldiers were NEVER glamorized much in Byzantium because they dealt in killing people and thats a pretty big fucking sin.

Byzantium also almost never waged wars of pure conquest, almost all its wars were defensive in nature.

Byzantium also kept cool relations with the Muslim empires like the Fatimids and that in turn protected Christians in the middle east. The Emperor really was protector of christianity and the muslim leaders well respected him.

Until the western fucking shits, for whom the religion was all a sham to gain more power moved in fucked everything up for everybody. The crusades were a major part of why byzantium got weakened and eventually failed.

The Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome and commissioned successors there. Constantinople's only claim to apostolic succession is that Saint Andrew visited there. But that doesn't distinguish Constantinople from any of the other cities that were visited by the apostles.

Constantinople had no significance for the first 300 years of the Church. Meanwhile the Bishop of Rome was settling church-wide disputes from the 1st Century.

Constantinople's only claim to importance is that the Roman Emperor chose it as the new imperial capital in 4th Century. The Byzantines even stated this expressly as their justification for trying to elevate Constantinople to a patriarchate in the 2nd and 4th ecumenical councils.

Rome correctly rebutted every first millennium heresy. Constantinople fell for almost every first millennium heresy and had to be brought back each time by Rome.

The first millennium Church universally acknowledged Rome as the head of all churches.

Constantinople accepted reunion with Rome at the Council of Lyon in 1274 and at the Council of Florence in 1439. After Constantinople was conquered by the Ottomans, the Ottoman Sultan chose the patriarch of Constantinople, and chose the most anti-Catholic patriarch he could find.

Constantinople falsely divides God into "essence" and "energies", which is a denial of divine simplicity.

The Filioque is the historic teaching of the eastern Church Fathers.

The current "autocephalous" structure of the Eastern Orthodox is a modern innovation forced upon Constantinople by rebellious Eastern European countries in the 19th Century. Going back to the year 381, Constantinople had asserted itself as the head of the eastern churches (based on a claim to the military and political authority of the Byzantine Empire).

The Eastern Orthodox is only one of many schismatic sects that broke off from the Catholic Church in the east. There are also the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East.

Saint Jerome said it best:

Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout, since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain and the garden inclosed, I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price. Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed grain is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. You are the light of the world, you are the salt of the earth, you are vessels of gold and of silver. Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron, and eternal fire.

>False Idols are not to be followed

Don't tell that to us. Tell it to the "deus vult" catholic fags.

>Constantinople being dubbed "New Rome" was an imperial decision and not a Church decision
The fact that old Rome was named "Rome" and used to be the imperial capital was not a Church decision either. However honoring either BECAUSE it is the imperial capital WAS a Church decision as evidenced by canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (it literally says so).

>You said here # that the council gave "specific authority that the Bishop of New Rome has that the Bishop of (old) Rome does not have" and this is COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG AND STUPID OF YOU TO SAY, ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG.
Nope, here is the rest of the 28th canon:
>And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him.
Sure doesn't sound like the Bishop of Rome has absolute authority over the whole Church.

See There's also the 6th canon of the First Ecumenical Council:
>Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.
Sure sounds like the Patriarchs are equals with regional authority, rather than there being just one with absolute authority over the whole Church as the Papists claim.

when was christianity good?

See also the 9th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council:
>But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him.
Interestingly it doesn't refer resolution of disputes between Bishops or Clergymen to the Bishop of Rome but to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople. Sure doesn't sound like the Pope has the authority Papists claim.

>The fact that old Rome was named "Rome" and used to be the imperial capital was not a Church decision either

That's because Rome predated the Church you idiot.

>However honoring either BECAUSE it is the imperial capital WAS a Church decision

No, it was honored because it is it where Paul and Peter were martyred, as evidenced here as well as in A TON OF OTHER CHURCH DOCUMENTS AND HISTORICAL TEXTS

>Sure doesn't sound like the Bishop of Rome has absolute authority over the whole Church

Giving Constantinople authority to ordain within its jurisdiction is not giving it authority above Rome. That is like saying because the Russian Orthodox Church let the Orthodox Church in America become autocephalous, that they now above Moscow.

In any case, the doctrine of papal supremacy is something that developed over time, although it was not without precedent going all the way back to the 1st century. One of the main reasons it developed the way it did is because of the stupid, heretical, schismatic nature of the Eastern churches.

>Start Jewing the Jews and Christians with extra taxes to fund more Muslim imperialism

Man this never happened. Jizya was LOWER than comparable byzantine taxes. Churches were not destroyed. Jews were actually favoured due to their financial acumen.

Read a book man

>No, it was honored because it is it where Paul and Peter were martyred, as evidenced here # as well as in A TON OF OTHER CHURCH DOCUMENTS AND HISTORICAL TEXTS
The 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council literally says that the reason old Rome and second/next after it New Rome are honored is BECAUSE they were/are the imperial capital. It makes no mention of anything else. Or is an Ecumenical Council that is accepted as valid and guided by the Holy Spirit, even by the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope, not actually valid and guided by the Holy Spirit?

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded.

Second Council of Nicæa

Catholicism is Satanic paganism anyway.

>In any case, the doctrine of papal supremacy is something that developed over time, although it was not without precedent going all the way back to the 1st century. One of the main reasons it developed the way it did is because of the stupid, heretical, schismatic nature of the Eastern churches.
The Pope sent his lackey to excommunicate the Bishop of Constantinople in 1054 during the Divine Liturgy which is THE prayer of Christian unity with God and one another, and when the rest of the Patriarchs did not recognize the Pope's actions because they never recognized the Patriarch of Rome as having absolute authority over the whole Church, the butthurt Pope started "developing" the doctrine of papal supremacy and sending Crusaders to sack the imperial city of Constantinople and plunder its wealth and holy relics because old Rome was a backwater with little of value... which ones are the schismatics and heretics again?

this. There were plenty of Christian power centers in the early centuries. Only later in time did Rome pull the supreme authority card. Hence why 1054 happened

>self-serving letter written by Bishop of old Rome that was not accepted as canonical by the Ecumenical Council Nice piece of "evidence" there.

It was sent TO the pope kek

>that was not accepted as canonical

source: your ass

He's a false pope.

>and when the rest of the Patriarchs did not recognize the Pope's actions

You really fell for the Orthodox memes hard didn't you. Many patriarchs did recognize the Pope's actions, which is why we have the Eastern Rite.

>sending Crusaders to sack the imperial city of Constantinople and plunder its wealth and holy relics

What is the Massacre of the Latins

>which ones are the schismatics and heretics again?

Constantinople fell for the Caesaropapism heresy for almost a thousand years top kek

So the Pope's a cuck. So what? If he ain't a-Peter-ing he aint Peter. Let me show you how to Catholic. How to Catholic: let me show you it. Voca me cum Petrus et Paulus. Deus Vult, you plank.