So the Patriarchs and bishops of the 19th century are comparable with Nestorius?
Only in the sense that I am as obligated to believe every item of every letter of theirs, or every private opinion ever expressed by any of them, as I am obligated to believe everything ever written or said by Nestorius.
peterfarrington: You still evade the question.
No I have not evaded the question.
I answered it.
But you insist on beating a dead horse because you think it can win an argument for you.
But, like a dead horse, it just lies there and stinks.
peterfarrington: If you do not accept the teaching of, not an individual bishop but ALL the EO Patriarchs and a large number of bishops then how are you not setting yourself up as a judge of what is to be believed?
The Church has not said that encyclicals are infallible.
I never said that I do not accept the teaching of the encyclical to which you refer.
I reject your interpretation of a portion of it.
I don't believe the Church has ever taught that Rome's position as the capitol of the Empire was the only
reason for its primacy. It was one reason but not the only one.
peterfarrington: You condemned me as a Protestant because I study the Fathers and seek to understand what they teach. You said I should just 'accept the authority of the Church'. But it is patently obvious that you do not, since the teaching authority of the Church is vested in our bishops.
I said a post of yours sounded like Reformation theology. I did not condemn you as a Protestant.
I also said that you belong to a group which has aligned itself with a sect whose 5th-century schism from the Church was Proto-Protestant.
peterfarrington: Did the Patriarchs and bishops of the 19th century Encyclical about Roman Catholicism teach Orthodox truth or error?
Post the encyclical here please.
I doubt that it teaches error, but, as I recall, your take on it, and the use to which you put a portion of it, are erroneous.
What if it does contain some errors?
Has the Church ever asserted that all encyclicals are infallible?
Am I obligated to believe the Encyclion
of the Emperor Basilicus, as well, even though it anathematized Chalcedon and legitimized the Latrocinium?
It was signed by 700 Eastern bishops.
peterfarrington: It is a simple question. You only need to answer truth or error.
What will it be, or will you continue to fail to answer any questions.
Why do you reject four out the seven ecumenical councils of the Church?
Why should you control this discussion and demand that your questions be answered when you will not answer mine?
What right does someone who rejects the chief expression of the Church's authority and her charism of infallibility - her ecumenical councils - have to question me about an obscure 19th-century encyclical?