No, its not since heretics and schimatics are wont to defy and deny papal claims/primacy in order to further their own agendas, i.e., heretical beliefs and/or power. Moreover, by dint of your argument all those heretics who denied Christ’s divinity is evidence against the concept of His divinity.
It is kind of difficult to seperate it all out. At first it started out with just debating/discussing with some EO Christians. Stranglely one of the books that pushed me further toward the east was a Cardinal Ratzinger book Called to Communion. That coupled with a strange experience of the existential character of the Christian faith. The EO is extremely existential in its theology as can be seen in the theology of Gregory Palamas. Before that any questions I had were just on certain issues, but now the foundaton of the Catholic Church is on the erge of collapsing under my feet it seems. And so now I can’t simply dismiss the east and submit because it seems to be a question of the whole worldview.Nope, Jimmy, I sure didn’t know. I wouldn’t have asked you, turkey, if I knew already!
What issues, readings, or experiences have prompted the change if you don’t mind me asking? I won’t be offended if you don’t explain. Just curious. I’ve questioned my faith as a Catholic before and everyone knew about it on here really. It happens.
Of course, that is the claim of Rome. Rome claims that everyone who disagrees opposes the papal claims simply because they want to further an agenda. So the east is simply a bunch of disobedient fools.No, its not since heretics and schimatics are wont to defy and deny papal claims/primacy in order to further their own agendas, i.e., heretical beliefs and/or power. Moreover, by dint of your argument all those heretics who denied Christ’s divinity is evidence against the concept of His divinity.
Edit: Look towards the orthodox Catholic bishops of the day and see whether or not they were in communion with Rome.
There are Orthodox dioceses who believe/practice rebaptism (for Catholics) while other don’t, they are some who believe/practice that artificial contraception is acceptable, while others see it as immoral. There are some Orthodox churches that have more than 73 books in their Bible while others like us have only 73 (the Oriental Orthodox Church). There are some Orthodox who believe in toll house (afterlife) while others believe that we are still waiting in Hades for the second coming of Christ. There some Orthodox who deny some ecumenical councils (Chalcedon) while others accept all seven (pre-millenial).
If you’re going to quote something, I would expect that you would have read that entire Father’s work and not just their particular quote. If not, then you’re cherry picking and as I already said, Muslims, Jews and Atheists that want to discredit Christianity do the same thing.I actually do read everyone’s quotes! lol Maybe I’m just a ding-a-ling but I don’t consider quotations useless in an debate/discussion over matters such as these. It’s a cheesy way out to say “bahh, it’s taken out of context.” I hear that all the time in here, usually from Orthodox, and they never actually prove the real context that the Catholic is supposedly manipulating? It’s probably the most-overused excuse to not face the quotes and answer them. I never hear anyone answer the quotes, just dismiss 'em and say, ‘out of context.’ When pressed what context they truly held, you never hear an answer…
I hear Obama apologists always saying the “context, context!” argument. Then you switch to Rush Limbaugh and hear “he took me out of context!” I think context is becoming the greatest diversionary tactic in the world today!
I don’t accept them because they are taken in a vaccuum and not with the whole of the fathers. For example, Cyprian and Firmillian are often quoted to support papal supremacy (they are both quoted by the CA article), but it is ignored that neither of them actually supported the doctrine. Cyprian speaks clearly about all bishops having an equal voice. Firmillian doesn’t even make a statement that even sounds like it supports supremacy. The most he says is that Stephen claims to have some authority.
The east solved its problems through councils, not through the pope. There may be references to the pope but that isn’t the normal way of solving problems.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
it is not only the claims of Rome, you are being dishonest here. just look to the Fathers they all agreed that the Church in Rome was in Charge. this is not a matter of power.
well i think Firmillian does recognize teh authority of the pope. he just cant accept the fact that the Pope is accepting baptism from heretics. let’s compare this to the Apostles time when some were saying that to be a Christian one would have to become a Jew. just think about it. the Apostles decided the issue. well, just think that some was opposed and left the Church and continued with their teachings and condemned the Apostles. just think about that. do you think that the Apostles would have been heretics? or was their authority final?
I agree, at least from the passages I read in the book I have (which I cited.) That was my original point, that the claim goes back early but I used Pope St. Victor to start. There is also the lingering question of why the Corinthians wrote to Rome ? (Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.) I was just trying to make the point that it appeared to me that the claims were early. Maybe you just see Pope St. Stephen as being the first to at least claim to hold some unique authority?
As I said, some bishops apply the concept of oikonomia on the issue of rebaptism.
what kind of unity?
No, I refer to heretics (and those you mentioned in your post), moreover, that you would use someone like Bishop Dioscorus (who initiated the robber council and had the patriarch of Constantinople beaten to death) to make your argument against papal authority makes me wonder??
This is bogus (and “arians” still exist) because your argument was that just because someone rejects papal authority, ipso facto it’s untrue (but you must look at those who are repudiating him, i.e., whether they were committing heresy and/or introducing innovation in order to surmise the validity of their rejection). Moreover, history clearly shows that everyone that was orthodox was in communion with Rome, but those that weren’t, well, separated from her.
Severus condemned everyone not just Rome (they separated from the Church in its entirety), moreover the signed agreement between CC and OO happened recently because having understood why they rejected Chalcedon (misunderstanding of the dogma), we realize that they are in accord with us and/or that we are in accord with each other on this issue.
They have a unit of faith. The west wants a unity based on the authority of Rome.
one thing you dont understand is that the world looks to the CC. the authority of the CC is evident. you dont see anyone going to EO to talk about issues like they do with the CC. she has much more issues to deal with. you dont see Patriarchs issuing letters to the leaders of the world advising them. evangelizing to them, do you? the CC does.
There was not complete agreement. That is why this is even an issue. Cyprian and Firmillian show otherwise. Accusing me of dishonesty doesn’t take this discussion anywhere.
The world looks to Barrak Obama too.
how about the others?
Flavian being beat to death is most likely a myth.
No it wasn’t. Don’t twist my words. My arguement was that the early church didn’t live according to any concept of papal supremacy. The fact is that Rome was not infallible and supreme according to the fathers. The fact that the arians don’t exist any more is proof enough for me that they are wrong and always were. Please don’t point to the JW’s as Arians, they have no connection to the Arians intellectually or historically.
The monophysites had three patriarchs including Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Constantinople had signed the henoticon, and so had Severus and the other patriarchs. Rome was the only patriarch who didn’t sign it. It was only upon the accession of Justin to the thrown of the empire that there was an absolute break between Constantinople and Severus (who was patriarch of Antioch). The point still stands. Severus of Antioch held to an orthodox view yet was not in communion with Rome.
