Author Topic: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics  (Read 68484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,938
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #225 on: July 08, 2008, 03:29:46 PM »


Any institution that is of great size has more problems than small ones. You guys never reached that much power, which is why you guys were limited in comparison to what you could do etc.

During your Dark Ages, while Rome was a village and overrun by pagans and Arians (it quickly died out in the East, but lived on for centuries until Constantinople stamped it out under Justinian), we were the only show in town.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,938
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #226 on: July 08, 2008, 06:36:09 PM »


Nobody from the See of Rome does, or any other RC, which has more numbers than the OC, thinks that Rome has been heretical for the last 1000 years. How can you say every learned? On the contrary, Every learned from both the OC and RC knows that the eastern sees were heretical. Big difference.

Filioque.

Quote
Again, what condemned Honorius was his view in a private letter. Rome has never taught that openly. And remember, this is all you have. Big difference. It is not even comparable. It is a serious effort of reaching.

All we have?

Pope Vigilius was stricken from the dyptich until he condemned the Three Chapters.

Pope Zosimos dragged his feet on Pelagius: we had to send him and Jerome back West.

Pope Leo III puts the Creed without the filioque on the doors of St. Peter's and St. Paul's, and Pope Leo IX (?) sends someone to us to excommunicate us for "omitting" it.

etc.ect.ect.


[/quote]
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #227 on: July 08, 2008, 08:37:21 PM »
During your Dark Ages, while Rome was a village and overrun by pagans and Arians (it quickly died out in the East, but lived on for centuries until Constantinople stamped it out under Justinian), we were the only show in town.

The time being discussed was after 1000 AD. You're kinda missing the point.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #228 on: July 08, 2008, 08:40:28 PM »
You're missing the point. We were talking about openly teaching heresy. I know that the east have disrepected the roman popes...but thats not the issue.

The filioque is not considered heretical by the learned in the west, whereas everyone learned from the west and east agree that the eastern sees were openly teaching heresies.

Big difference.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 08:45:07 PM by truth »

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #229 on: July 08, 2008, 09:47:39 PM »


I just studied a bit on your council and found this:

With the passage of the 28th canon, the council fathers at Chalcedon attempted to elevate the stature of the See of Constantinople (New Rome). Originally, Constantinople was not counted among the pentarchy—that is the five patriarchal sees founded by the apostles. Nonetheless, over time, the Eastern bishops repeatedly asserted the pre-eminence of the bishop of Constantinople, although always second to the Bishop of Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon

In practice, all Christians East and West addressed the papacy as the See of Peter or the Apostolic See rather than the See of the Imperial Capital because it was commonly understood that Rome's precedence comes from Peter rather than its association with Imperial authority.

There was a great deal more topics at that council than what you seem to portray, unless I got the wrong council. If I got the right council you refered to above, it seems to prove my case: that Rome was recognized as supreme. And the said council was an attempt to change that.

With the papal legates opposing the canon, Emperor Marcian and Anatolius, the patriarch of Constantinople, sought the pope's approval of the council in separate letters. Anatolius in particular defended canon 28 in his letter, but Pope Leo remained unmoved and would to withhold his support. In a later letter to the Emperor, Leo says that Anatolius should behave more modestly since he owes his enthronement to the pope's consent. Furthermore, Leo tells the Emperor that he has "abstained from annulling this ordination" because of his desire to preserve peace and unity within the Church.[4] However, growing concerned that withholding his approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 he confirmed the council’s canons except for the controversial 28th canon.

Unless I am out of my mind, Council of Chalcedon proves my point. If the east did not recognize the supremacy of Rome, why did they act as if they did?  ???

It seems to me that the above proves that the east knew of Rome's supremacy and shows them trying to legally elavate the New Rome's ranking. When it failed, schism occured. How does this support your case at all?


Ahh, you gotta love anyone who brings quotes from wikipedia into a serious debate and expects to be taken seriously.  Isn't that kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight? :D
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #230 on: July 08, 2008, 09:55:40 PM »
Ahh, you gotta love anyone who brings quotes from wikipedia into a serious debate and expects to be taken seriously.  Isn't that kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight? :D

Thanks for your rudeness.

Offline Heracleides

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
  • Kona-Kai
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #231 on: July 08, 2008, 10:09:33 PM »
You're missing the point. We were talking about openly teaching heresy. I know that the east have disrepected the roman popes...but thats not the issue.

The filioque is not considered heretical by the learned in the west, whereas everyone learned from the west and east agree that the eastern sees were openly teaching heresies.

Big difference.

I think the distinction you fail to make is that in our view these "learned in the west" are heretics.  Of course Roman Catholics, learned or otherwise, are not going to see themselves and their leadership as heretical.  But then the same is true of the Mormons or any other 'church' outside the True Faith.
.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 10:10:52 PM by Heracleides »
"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #232 on: July 08, 2008, 10:19:33 PM »
Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

Are you familiar with the Arian crisis?  Constantinople 55 years out of Communion.
Acacian schism?  35 years.
Monotheletism. 41 years.
Iconoclasm.  61 years.
The error in your logic, though, is that you equate Constantinople with the whole of the Eastern Church.  When Constantinople fell into heresy, which I will not deny, the orthodox faithful of the East separated themselves from her until she returned to the orthodox faith.

Quote
And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?
The Orthodox faithful who could still be found in the East, such as St. Maximos the Confessor.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #234 on: July 08, 2008, 10:31:09 PM »
Thanks for your rudeness.
You're welcome. :)  But seriously, I thought my point was just common knowledge. ;)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 10:35:37 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #235 on: July 08, 2008, 10:51:55 PM »
I think the distinction you fail to make is that in our view these "learned in the west" are heretics.  Of course Roman Catholics, learned or otherwise, are not going to see themselves and their leadership as heretical.  But then the same is true of the Mormons or any other 'church' outside the True Faith.
.

Ya, but the point is, the learned from the east and west agree that the eastern sees were heretical.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #236 on: July 08, 2008, 10:53:11 PM »
The error in your logic, though, is that you equate Constantinople with the whole of the Eastern Church.  When Constantinople fell into heresy, which I will not deny, the orthodox faithful of the East separated themselves from her until she returned to the orthodox faith.
The Orthodox faithful who could still be found in the East, such as St. Maximos the Confessor.

The problem with you using St Maximos is that his quotes are some of the strongest for the See of Rome's case. Especially in regard to pope Honorius. You guys seem to have missed what the Roman popes and St Maximos said regarding Honorius at the said council. No doubt to try to increase your case.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 11:19:16 PM by truth »

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #237 on: July 08, 2008, 11:18:11 PM »
Why? I was refering to how the early Roman church was perceived by early church fathers etc. If I have the wrong views of Rome, my main point is that I am in very good company historically speaking. You would have to blame many of the early great thinkers for the supposed confusion as well. If Rome was not supreme, why all of the quotes like St Maximos'? You can respond saying they had those views because they were all dumb etc, which is what you are indirectly saying, and so in that case, I'd be happy to be called dumb by you guys too.  ;D

The above doesn't answer the question I asked in Reply #187.   ???

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #238 on: July 08, 2008, 11:23:37 PM »
Ya, but the point is, the learned from the east and west agree that the eastern sees were heretical.

What is your point?  You seem to be arguing from a Greek Catholic perspective where such a concept did not exist before the Great Schism in 1054.   ???

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #239 on: July 08, 2008, 11:30:41 PM »
List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?

Why? I dont have to explain what you call heresies in the 2nd and 3rd because I dont think they were heresies.

And if the eastern heresies were resloved, that means they were actually heretical beforehand right? Whereas there is no similiar situation regarding the See of Rome. The best you have are the instances when the east direspected popes, as well as a private letter from Honorius.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 11:54:27 PM by truth »

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #240 on: July 08, 2008, 11:56:28 PM »
Why?

And if they were resloved, that means they were actually heretical beforehand right? Whereas there is no similiar situation regarding the See of Rome. The best you have is the instances when the east direspected popes, as well as a private letter from Honorius.
Well, you can argue that we're wrong to say so, and you can argue that you don't see your church this way, but you cannot deny that we Orthodox deem your church to have fallen totally into heresy close to 1000 years ago and that, from our perspective, your church has never resolved this situation.  Until either we Orthodox no longer deem the RCC to have ever been heretical or the RCC recognizes her heresies and repents, this situation will remain unresolved, and your continued argument with us that Rome has never fallen into heresy will be futile.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 11:59:03 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #241 on: July 09, 2008, 12:01:11 AM »
Well, you can argue that we're wrong to say so, and you can argue that you don't see your church this way, but you cannot deny that we Orthodox deem your church to have fallen totally into heresy close to 1000 years ago and that, from our perspective, your church has never resolved this situation.  Until either we Orthodox no longer deem the RCC to have ever been heretical or the RCC recognizes her heresies and repents, this situation will remain unresolved, and your continued argument with us that Rome has never fallen into heresy will be futile.

It is not futile because my case only pertains to the early church, not the later. There is no point for the latter becasue we disagree.

Most of my posts answer the objections for the papacy. (Clarifying councils, roman popes etc.)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 12:03:24 AM by truth »

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #242 on: July 09, 2008, 12:06:03 AM »
Why? I dont have to explain what you call heresies in the 2nd and 3rd because I dont think they were heresies.

I'm not talking about how the Orthodox domain sees RCs nor how do RCs see themselves; Rather, How do you see us even though RCs severed Communion in 1054?  What heresies did you see in the East in the 2nd and 3rd Millennia regardless if they were ever resolved or not?[/quote]

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #243 on: July 09, 2008, 12:08:21 AM »
I'm not talking about how the Orthodox domain sees RCs nor how do RCs see themselves; Rather, How do you see us even though RCs severed Communion in 1054?  What heresies did you see in the East in the 2nd and 3rd Millennia regardless if they were ever resolved or not?

You mean as far as teaching wrong dogma?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #244 on: July 09, 2008, 12:15:01 AM »
The problem with you using St Maximos is that his quotes are some of the strongest for the See of Rome's case. Especially in regard to pope Honorius.
Ho hum.  How many times have we argued over this quote before, with you and with other would-be apologists like you?  We have argued consistently that RC attempts to use St. Maximos as a defender of your position either take his quote out of context or doctor the quote to fit your arguments or isolate St. Maximos from the authoritative context of all the holy Fathers.  Yet you have done little but dodge our criticisms, accuse us of misusing his writings or of dodging the issue ourselves, and continue with the same thrust that St. Maximos has spoken truth and that we must all assent to [your interpretation of] his quote.

When will you address our criticisms head on and prove to us that you and your ilk are NOT taking an isolated quote from St. Maximos out of context?  When will you give us the whole of the corpus of St. Maximos's writings so we can read his quotes in context?  When will you provide for us a broad picture of the history of the Church during the time of St. Maximos and of the issues that St. Maximos confronted, the issues that shaped how he related to Rome and to the other patriarchates?  Can you do this for us?  Or is this going to be like asking you to go to the moon to bring us back a piece of the green cheese that makes up its surface?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #245 on: July 09, 2008, 12:15:41 AM »
You mean as far as teaching wrong dogma?

Wake up troll and join us in the 21st Century....  How can one lung teach a different and incorrect dogma than the other lung?

Quote
Similarly, last year the present Patriarch, Bartholomew, publicly hailed Pope John Paul II as a "brother Patriarch" and, using the Pope's own imagery, spoke of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as "the two lungs of the Body of Christ." This, Bartholomew proclaimed, is a fundamental ecclesiological truth"!

Source for above quote.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 12:17:16 AM by SolEX01 »

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #246 on: July 09, 2008, 12:18:05 AM »
Ho hum.  How many times have we argued over this quote before, with you and with other would-be apologists like you?  We have argued consistently that RC attempts to use St. Maximos as a defender of your position either take his quote out of context or doctor the quote to fit your arguments or isolate St. Maximos from the authoritative context of all the holy Fathers.  Yet you have done little but dodge our criticisms, accuse us of misusing his writings or of dodging the issue ourselves, and continue with the same thrust that St. Maximos has spoken truth and that we must all assent to [your interpretation of] his quote.

When will you address our criticisms head on and prove to us that you and your ilk are NOT taking an isolated quote from St. Maximos out of context?  When will you give us the whole of the corpus of St. Maximos's writings so we can read his quotes in context?  When will you provide for us a broad picture of the history of the Church during the time of St. Maximos and of the issues that St. Maximos confronted, the issues that shaped how he related to Rome and to the other patriarchates?  Can you do this for us?  Or is this going to be like asking you to go to the moon to bring us back a piece of the green cheese that makes up its surface?

I am sure most here know the story of the eastern sees persecuting St Maximos, and how he sought the See of Rome for help. Thats it in a nutshell.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #247 on: July 09, 2008, 12:18:49 AM »
Wake up troll and join us in the 21st Century....  How can one lung teach a different and incorrect dogma than the other lung?

Source for above quote.

Why insult me?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #248 on: July 09, 2008, 12:19:39 AM »
It is not futile because my case only pertains to the early church, not the later.
And yet you're pinning your adherence to papal supremacy as it is defined today on the supposed precedent of the early church, which makes our accusation that the RCC fell into heresy in the 2nd Millennium totally relevant to any discussion of how the Eastern churches fell into heresy in the 1st.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #249 on: July 09, 2008, 12:21:40 AM »
Why insult me?

Not an insult, just the truth - you made your point perfectly clear when you said that the Eastern Churches have taught the wrong dogma while the Ecumenical Patriarch has repeatedly said that the Roman Catholicism is the other Lung of World Christianity.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #250 on: July 09, 2008, 12:24:50 AM »
And yet you're pinning your adherence to papal supremacy as it is defined today on the supposed precedent of the early church, which makes our accusation that the RCC fell into heresy in the 2nd Millennium totally relevant to any discussion of how the Eastern churches fell into heresy in the 1st.

I dont understand. Everybody knows the east was heretical. Only the east for the last 1000s years think that the west in is heresy. Why do you think your point relevant?

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #251 on: July 09, 2008, 12:26:06 AM »
Not an insult, just the truth - you made your point perfectly clear when you said that the Eastern Churches have taught the wrong dogma while the Ecumenical Patriarch has repeatedly said that the Roman Catholicism is the other Lung of World Christianity.

You lost me.


Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Toumarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,825
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #252 on: July 09, 2008, 12:27:18 AM »
Everybody knows the east was heretical.

Everybody knows the West is heretical.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #253 on: July 09, 2008, 12:29:45 AM »
You lost me.

Trolls are never lost.  What do you call Reply #243?

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #254 on: July 09, 2008, 12:33:36 AM »
Everybody knows the West is heretical.

Not the west. You're 50% right.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #255 on: July 09, 2008, 12:34:36 AM »
I am sure most here know the story of the eastern sees persecuting St Maximos, and how he sought the See of Rome for help. Thats it in a nutshell.
That's when Rome was Orthodox.  Why should any Orthodox believer not have the chance to bring his case before the bishop of an Orthodox church, particularly one as prominent as Rome's was at the time?  You might also note that the theology of St. Maximos was vindicated at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which, like most of the Ecumenical Councils, was largely comprised of Eastern bishops.

Yes, a good majority of Eastern churches did fall into heresy at various times, but you would have to think of the East as a homogeneous, monolithic community, much as the RCC defines itself, to argue from this fact that the WHOLE of the Eastern Church fell into heresy.  The joy of the decentralized authority structure of the Eastern Church is that, as long as a few of her faithful remained Orthodox, she still maintained within herself the ability to correct those of her faithful who fell into heresy; I'm sorry we cannot say this of the strongly centralized, pope-down model of church authority that you follow.  If the pope leads your church into heresy, who is there within your midst who can correct your church?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 12:36:11 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #256 on: July 09, 2008, 12:35:22 AM »
Trolls are never lost.  What do you call Reply #243?

Did you guys get an "okay" to call me a troll by the moderator or something? Why the insult? Why attempt to stear the thread along uncharitable lines?

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #257 on: July 09, 2008, 12:38:53 AM »
Quote
If the pope leads your church into heresy, who is there within your midst who can correct your church?

God

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #258 on: July 09, 2008, 12:39:48 AM »
Trolls are never lost.  What do you call Reply #243?
Enough of the troll language, okay.  truth has engaged us in a spirited debate, but I would hardly call his actions trolling.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #259 on: July 09, 2008, 12:42:03 AM »
God
But how does God choose to correct your church when she does veer from the true faith?  And don't tell me that he does so through his vicar, the pope, which would then make your reasoning very circular.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 12:43:29 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #260 on: July 09, 2008, 12:46:24 AM »
But how does God choose to correct your church?  And don't tell me that he does so through his vicar, the pope, which would then make your reasoning very circular.

Interesting question. Seeing that I dont think that the church ever taught wrongly, I am not sure how I would know. I suppose ultimately the answer would have to be circular. If I were to witness Rome saying to never be holy, and in fact hurt the innocent all of the time, I would cease to be RC. As I see it, Rome is protected from such failures.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #261 on: July 09, 2008, 12:47:06 AM »
OK, if truth is a legit contributor, he has yet to explain how one lung of World Christianity has taught and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #262 on: July 09, 2008, 12:51:23 AM »
Interesting question. Seeing that I dont think that the church ever taught wrongly, I am not sure how I would know. I suppose ultimately the answer would have to be circular. If I were to witness Rome saying to never be holy, and in fact hurt the innocent all of the time, I would cease to be RC. As I see it, Rome is protected from such failures.

How about the Inquisition or the Crusades - just one time things?  Many people suffered and died under Catholicism and no one in Rome stopped them from occurring.  However, those atrocities vanished with one apology that Pope John Paul II gave in Greece back in 2004.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #263 on: July 09, 2008, 12:51:53 AM »
But how does God choose to correct your church when she does veer from the true faith?  And don't tell me that he does so through his vicar, the pope, which would then make your reasoning very circular.

If Rome veered from faith in the past, I'd have a better answer. One of the reasons I became RC was because no such thing happened. All of the examples presented here from the OC fall short IMOP, or fail to tell the rest of the story behind their counter. For example, pope Honorius kept coming up along with the fact that the pope at the time condemned him for heresy. This is not true, as even St Maximos poiunted out. There was another case presented here relying on a canon that a poster stated was evidence that since Rome accepted the council as ecunmenical, that since the said canon was in it, then Rome agreed to it. When I researched the said canon and the council where it was found, I found Rome did except the council except for that particular canon! C'mon.

Time and time again I find the antipapist view mistaken, which reaffirms my faith in RC.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 12:52:19 AM by truth »

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #264 on: July 09, 2008, 12:53:47 AM »
OK, if truth is a legit contributor, he has yet to explain how one lung of World Christianity has taught and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?

I am sorry, I dont understand your question.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #265 on: July 09, 2008, 12:54:41 AM »
I am sorry, I dont understand your question.

What is it about the question that you don't understand?

Patriarch Bartholomew (who writes Patristically as an Orthodox Hierarch) said that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are the two lungs of World Christianity.

You said in Reply #243:

Quote from: truth
You mean as far as teaching wrong dogma?

Which leads me to my question:  How does one lung of World Christianity teaches and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?

I know it's a tough question.   ;)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 01:01:23 AM by SolEX01 »

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #266 on: July 09, 2008, 12:55:34 AM »
How about the Inquisition or the Crusades - just one time things?  Many people suffered and died under Catholicism and no one in Rome stopped them from occurring.  However, those atrocities vanished with one apology that Pope John Paul II gave in Greece back in 2004.

There have been sins, but not heresies in Rome. Thats the difference. A pope might make a mistake regarding worldly issues, but is protected from spiritual ones.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #267 on: July 09, 2008, 12:55:59 AM »
What is it about the question that you don't understand?

What are you getting at?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,494
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #268 on: July 09, 2008, 12:59:46 AM »
OK, if truth is a legit contributor, he has yet to explain how one lung of World Christianity has taught and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?
We can appropriately take issue with the legitimacy of truth's contributions to this thread, but that's not the same thing as calling truth a troll.  By definition, to call truth a troll is to accuse truth of intentionally posting to arouse our anger, an intent that can show itself in a refusal to actually engage us in any kind of dialogue regarding his assertions.  I haven't seen this.  If anything, I have seen truth actually take us up on our encouragement to read up on us and get to know us better, particularly as regards the OO who have posted on this thread.  This is hardly trolling, IMO, so for you to continue calling truth a troll without any evidence to support your accusation is actually an ad hominem and will be treated as such by the moderator staff.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 01:05:59 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,298
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #269 on: July 09, 2008, 01:07:32 AM »
By definition, to call truth a troll is to accuse truth of intentionally posting to arouse our anger, an intent that can show itself in a refusal to actually engage us in any kind of dialogue.  I haven't seen this.

In all fairness, my questions have been answered with what seem to me as evasion rather than explanation or an actual answer.

If anything, I have seen truth actually take us up on our encouragement to read up on us and get to know us better, particularly as regards the OO who have posted on this thread.  This is hardly trolling, IMO, so for you to continue calling truth a troll without any evidence to support your accusation is actually an ad hominem and will be treated as such by the moderator staff.

I would never make such an accusation without understanding and respecting the consequences of making such an accusation.   :)