Yes. But I think she does have good intentions (I know, I know, I deserve ice balls being thrown at me for saying so...) She is simply dedicated to the Bishop of Rome. You know, as the result of a search I was doing, I was reading over at the one Catholic Forums site one person choosing between Orthodoxy and RCism that Orthodox simply "dodge" the evidence for the supremicy of Rome. Of course, we have a few works on the subject that show otherwise. However, the topic was St. Maximus the Confessor. One must admit that St. Maximus did not like Constantinople and favored Rome. In fact, St. Maximus for a time went to great lengths to defend a heretical pope of Rome (which afterwards he could not do anymore once the evidence piled up). But he is a saint in that he still upheld the doctrine that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity (just as we find centuries before, the Quartodecimian saints were still held as Saints because, even though they held a practice that was contrary to their belief to some degree, they still held that Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day, the Lord's day). We even have some local councils that outwardly expressed that the Bishop of Rome is not first, yet they are not available in English, and were superceded by others anyway. In the Ecumenical Councils, there is only one Church that is called the "mother of all Churches," who was--before Rome--the primatial Church (i.e. Jerusalem), yet she still remains 4th in the diptychs. Well, I am straying off the topic but it seems to me that ElijahMaria, although many of us (including me) see her as misled, yet at the same time, even Saints--or at least one, St. Maximus--went out of his way to defend a heretic (Honorius) who expressly contradicted his own teaching regarding monotheletism, and in the same tomos tried to defend the same heretic pope against accusations of heresy in terms of filioque. Yet, even when doing so, he upheld the teachings of the Church, not seeing the inconsistancy that the Church herself would later see (and, indeed condemn). Well, it is late, and I hope that my point is well received.
Mary isn't staying on track here, obviously. Again, she's confusing the dogmatic process with everything else. It seems to happen quite a bit in this conversation, something I have been protesting but not getting through.
It is starting to look like a xerox.
Again, we also got another one of Mary's anonymous Keepers of Orthodox Odd Knowledge friends thrown in to boot. Whew! It is like riding the blade of a blender... around and around again. [/dizzy]
I hope that the dogmatic definitions that have occurred during the schism are considered fairly on both sides and regularized so that they may be acceptable to all. That does not mean that I think the west needs to abjure her teachings.Yes, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Also I don't really take any Orthodox believer too seriously when they speak to me of ecclesial "irregularities" that are all one sided....