Dear brother Joe,
And the EOC is oh so perfect? Log in the eye, brother.
Did I say the Orthodox Church is perfect? Did I miss something?
Of course it is. It is because of our human weakness that Jesus set leaders over the laity.
But the leaders are humans themselves are they not?
No its not. The fact that you have bishops means that you inherently understand the shortcomings of humanity who does need leadership. The fact that you have bishops means that you inherently accept that that the Church cannot function without human leaders. And the fact that you can’t accept the Pope demonstrates the inconsistency of your argument.
Of course we recognize the shortcomings of humanity. We’re not the ones with an
infallible leader.
As to my argument being inconsistent; it does not follow that since we have bishops we have to have one super-bishop. You are starting with basic Catholic presuppositions and then making a series of logical leaps to arrive at your conclusion. In order to get from point A to point B you’ve made a number of wild and unnecessary detours.
Every Catholic knows enough to live their lives as faithful Catholics. That’s all that matters. It’s just that EO love to utilize the fallacy of proving to much to pretend their Church is perfect. As an Oriental, I can heap accusations of what I percieve are inconsistent and unpatristic practicies and teachings on you and your Church. But I won’t do so because you have a right to your own developments in practice and theology. The problem comes when you don’t recognize that you have developments, and disparage other Churches meanwhile for having their own. Log in the eye, brother.
I’m not questioning the faithfulness of Catholics. I’m saying there seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion on what the Catholic Church actually teaches on some subjects. You my brother are a shinning example of that. I’ve never met another Catholic either in person or online that has the same take on Catholic teachings as you do.
Don’t even pretend that St. Peter was corrected for doctrine. That’s beneath you.
Actually my chair is beneath me. I wonder, did St Paul kiss St Peter’s feet and back out of the room after calling him a hypocrite?
I’ll agree with you there, but if you think that is what V1 and V2 teaches, then you are just towing the standard EO polemic line. Think for yourself, brother. Read some orthodox Catholic books about V1 and V2, instead of non-Catholic ones. IMO, the MP has more pretensions to power than our Pope does, so look to your own house first. Log in the eye, brother.
The Pope doesn’t have pretensions to power, he already has it. As to the MP, he certainly is not claiming jurisdiction over the other Churches as the Pope is. I can understand giving the MP some leeway and understanding considering the fact that Patriarch Kirill is only the second Patriarch since the fall of communism and the end of the most horrendous and widespread persecution of Christians in the history of the world.
Of course I would say if any Orthodox bishop has pretensions to power it would be the Ecumenical Patriarch and his novel interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
Nope. I invite you to participate in the “infallibilty - revisited” thread to voice your concerns. Let’s discuss it to see if your perception is valid according to what the V1 Fathers intended.
Discerning what the Fathers intended is about as effective as figuring out what the framers of the Constitution intended. Intentions are vague, the plain text is not.
And the very existence of the Catholic Church is a daily reproach to those who think she is not from God. The Orthodox Churches are already part of the Catholic Church, and vice-versa, and always have been. Only misunderstanding has kept us visibly apart.
We’re not the ones making the case that the papacy is absolutely necessary for unity and consistency in doctrine. The existence of Orthodoxy is proof that is not true.
In what way? You just can’t say X and expect us to believe it. Demonstrate how I have begged the question, even as I have demonstrated the inconsitency in your position.
By assuming that the institution of the episcopacy, or that the text the Apostolic Canons or any other early document necessarily support the modern papacy.
The Protestants are an offspring of liberal thinking gone bad in the wake of the Renaissance, not of the Catholic Church. It came from outside, not from within the Church. The medieval course studies offered by the EOC must be pretty poor not to see the difference.
I guess there are no Protestants in countries dominated by the EOC, since, according to you, she is such a bulwark of perfection?
Log in the eye, brother - log in the eye.
Blessings,
Marduk
And the scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages had no influence? As to the Orhtodox Church being a “bulwark of perfection”, I don’t remember saying that. Perhaps you can point out where I made that assertion?
In Christ
Joe
)