I am considering the Orthodox Church

[trophybearer]

The fact is, you hurl accusations, concerning the IC, at the Catholic Church and have no authoritative basis to do so. You can’t have it both ways.

We’re just fine with the tradition handed down to us. We don’t need to go defining things ad-infinitum. It never was a teaching of the Church and it still isn’t. The fact that you imagine that nothing can be deemed heretical without condemnation by an ecumenical council and that until such all is up for grabs only betrays this innovative mindset.

 

[jam070406]

We’re just fine with the tradition handed down to us. We don’t need to go defining things ad-infinitum. It never was a teaching of the Church and it still isn’t. The fact that you imagine that nothing can be deemed heretical without condemnation by an ecumenical council and that until such all is up for grabs only betrays this innovative mindset.

Many Fathers attest to her being Immaculate. Yes, it was indeed defined based on the tradition handed down. And the fact that you can’t prove it false speaks great volumes.

 

[trophybearer]

Many Fathers attest to her being Immaculate. Yes, it was indeed defined based on the tradition handed down. And the fact that you can’t prove it false speaks great volumes.

They do not mean what you’re trying to make them mean. They are not referring to what your Church calls the ‘immaculate conception’. What part of that don’t you understand? [edited]

 

[jam070406]

They do not mean what you’re trying to make them mean. They are not referring to what your Church calls the ‘immaculate conception’. What part of that don’t you understand? get it through your head. I’m not going to roll in the cespool with you.

Wow. Such charity. You don’t have to worry about it because you’ll now be on my ignore list.

 

[trophybearer]

Wow. Such charity. You don’t have to worry about it because you’ll now be on my ignore list.

No place I’d rather be.

 

[Ignatios]

That was not our argument,…

:yup: Yes it was

… that is, you were implying that just because the Vatican (the location wherein the pope resides) is politically independent this somehow means that the papacy or rather the office of Peter administered through the bishops of Rome is political, this is a fallacy.

You are a master in getting around the contention point aren’t you?
What is in your mind shall never happen .
The above is YOUR implication, also you are great on creating a straw man:

2.An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

3.a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.

straw man definition

A made-up version of an opponent’s argument that can easily be defeated. To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticisms of their own position: “His speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn’t really convincing because he attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issues.”

dictionary.reference.com/browse/straw+man

Here is the arguement from its beginning:
Josie L earlier:

Yes, it is in fact incorrect because you view the papacy as a political institution …

I posted the following as a proove that the Vatican city is recognized as a State and it is not “incorrect” to view it as Political institution in which it refutes Josie L statement above:
Ignatios earlier:

…An official from the Vatican’s Secretary of State department has reacted to the recent suggestion that Pepperdine professor Douglas Kmiec should become the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican by saying, "it will never happen.

Josie L responds as follow:
Josie L ealier:

That’s completely invalid as the papacy existed before the Vatican state, moreover, the reason for its creation were valid…

And to make a long story short, I kept implying to her that she is not reponding to the contention point… and now, she is again going of to something else…

Hellooooo :crying:, Please, pleeeeeeassssse, do comprehend what the text is saying or if you think that you are going to divert the discussion, it is clear by now that you will not succeed.
Face it you made a claim that you can never deffend. whether you are going to admit it or not, actually by keep trying to divert the discussion, is putting you even in worse position.

… The ORIGINS of the papacy are divinely instituted (Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-19).

Now this is a diffrent subject, but I see that you are desperate to move on to another discussion… granted, since you have proved that you have no prove to your claim.

I don’t see anything in relation to your claim above in this verse i.e. “…The ORIGINS of the papacy are divinely instituted …” The Lord spoke about building HIS CHURCH, No mention of the Papacy or the Pope that they will be the universal Church or the Bishop !!!.

BUT we are preaching to the Choir.

…Moreover, my discourse with Hesychios (which started all this) was about his erroneous arguments against papal supremacy, i.e…,

Irrelevant.

… the pope cannot willy-nilly deprive bishops of their God-given authority (as was delineated in Vatican I)

But the Bishops authority is a pope-given authority.

You are not carefull in quoting are you? you keep getting yourself in tight squeezes all the time, or is it your church who puts you in such position?

CCC#1559:…In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom.

nor contradict or change the deposit of faith.

yes he did both, I.C. Purg. Indulgences. Filioque. the Pope as head of the Church Dogmatically etc etc…etc
Josie L, trust me we do understand what the RCC teachings are.

… It is useless to argue as he was because we believe the bishops of Rome are the successor to the rock upon which the Church would be built, and that because of this their faith will never fail (Luke 22:31).

Now the above is a great example of what fallacies are. Pope Honorius was not the only Pope who failed.

Well, I would have to say that my copying and pasting is much better than your ability to write and/or comprehend English,

Your lack of comprehension is very evident through out your discussion, anyone with half brain would see that, also copying and pasting does not require good grammar skills since it is literally copying and pasting, silly goose.
Now, yes I think that I acknowldged that My third language ( English) is imperfect, however my comprehension is much higher then yours per the discussion on these boards

moreover would you please point out which of the 20 or so quotes I provided are not actually patristic? It would benefit us all to know.

Go back to the following thread and check it out —> " Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?" I think I had showed a couple flawed or reworded quotes for an example only.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…continued

You still don’t get it do you Ignatios

By Now, I have lost every hope for you that you may snap out of the brain wash that it is deeply planted in your head, But I answer only for the reason that maybe someone who is being a hearer of the truth.

… the privileges, customs, and charisms associated with the bishops of Romes as Head of the Church

May GOD forgive our eyes and mind from reading and looking at such awful heretical sayings,
THE LORD CHRIST JESUS IS the only HEAD of the Church.
Ephesians 1:22
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

are due to God because of what Jesus said, and subsequently bestowed on Peter, i.e., canon law merely formalizes it.

this is the Canon Law of the RCC But NOT the canon of the One Holy and truly Catholic and Apostolic Church.

NO HE DIDN’T

:yup: :yup: :yup:

[SIGN]DID TOO[/SIGN] [SIGN]DID TOO[/SIGN] [SIGN]DID TOO[/SIGN]

I will give you the chance to deffend this one if you can in a debate, do you feel confident enough to deffend it?

Just wondering but how has Orthodoxy grown since the schism?

:byzsoc: Miracle, considering all the persecutions and over 20million Martyrs in the twentieth century alone, that is more than all the Christian Martyrs in the west from the beginning of Christianity.
Thanks to the Wisdom of the HEAD of the Church i.e. JESUS CHRIST†††

Your arrogance knows no bounds Ignatios.

My arrogance is not a match to yours,go back and check your very first comments to me, besides does this means anything ? from your profile —>>>About josie L
Biography
culturally Italian, speak three languages, and love the Lord
Religion
Catholic
Interests
posting on forums (he!he!), and arguing

I am usually not this harsh, but your overture on me ( your very first comments) required that I should cut you down a couple pegs, however, I can see clearly where I offended you and for that I ask you to forgive me as I forgive yours.

May GOD bless you †††

 

[Ignatios]

He was a notorius anti-Eastern Christian bigot whose writings have poisoned the minds of generations of Roman Catholics.
The concept of development (evolution of understanding) of doctrine depends upon some Anglican converts of recent history (19th century) who had a need to explain their conversions to the English Protestant world they had been a part of and continued to interact with.

In a sense, they could not actually deny that the Latin Catholic church did add to, or change, interpretations of it’s received Apostolic beliefs (a major criticism also leveled by the 16th century Latin Catholic reformers who shattered the western church), the evidence for the changes was just too strong, so they described it as “development” to mitigate the impact.

There are different ways to view these phenomena. The idea that the understanding of essential Truths can change over time (and even potentially return to earlier interpretations) is one worth exploring, I think.

It is also worth discussing what the value of this concept may be to the Christian community, for example: how does it save people? … And whether or not there is actually some tangible benefit to those believers who are born later enough (in time) to know of the changes.

The subject deserves a thread of it’s own, one such thread is here, a very log and rambling but frank discussion.

Thank you abundantly My Brother In CHRIST for sharing this peice of knowledge with us,
you have discribed it accurately, debating SOME of the RCs on those forums we can see his work influence on them.
GOD bless you my Brother in CHRIST, pray for me a sinner as I pray for you. †††

 

[Harpazo]

If you are going to appeal to Catholic Teaching why not go to the sources that are authoritative?

A Saint in your church spoke this way of the Immaculate Conception? Do you not accept anything as authoritative unless it is “magisterial” or “proclaimed ex cathedra”? It’s pretty telling to me from Bernard of Clairvaux that the IC is nothing but a novelty. St. John has much to say about the subject. Rather than mock the Orthodox for not being Latins, why not read it so we can discuss it? His chapter titled “Zeal not according to knowledge” describes the Orthodox view rather well. But if you wish to continue to denigrate it, then I don’t see how anyone can have a discussion with you.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jam070406]

A Saint in your church spoke this way of the Immaculate Conception? Do you not accept anything as authoritative unless it is “magisterial” or “proclaimed ex cathedra”? It’s pretty telling to me from Bernard of Clairvaux that the IC is nothing but a novelty. St. John has much to say about the subject. Rather than mock the Orthodox for not being Latins, why not read it so we can discuss it? His chapter titled “Zeal not according to knowledge” describes the Orthodox view rather well. But if you wish to continue to denigrate it, then I don’t see how anyone can have a discussion with you.

In Christ,
Andrew

Whoah, whoah, whoah. When did I ever “mock the Orthodox for not being Latin”?
Please spare everyone the same old tired Orthodox, polemic, rhetoric.

I actually attend a Byzantine Church quite frequently.

I’ve been trying to defend the IC against attacks from Orthodox that say it’s heresy, innovation, error, etc. Proof you cannot give.
I have, in fact, never said anything denigrating about the Orthodox belief. And I reject that notion. I have asked questions about what you believe and try to understand. And also to see why you claim it is impossible for Mary to have been conceived Immaculate, which still is foggy.

Of course we go to official Church Teaching in regards to the Faith, rather then individuals opinions. Why wouldn’t we? The Church honors Saints for their examples of heroic virtue and love of God. Not just for every word uttered out of their mouth.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
If you people cannot discuss/debate without the personal attacks and snide remarks you should reconsider before posting.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)