I thought I did by showing relevant links.
I figured it would be easier than to put the same ideas into my own words. You can read it from the source.
From where I am standing, there are no historical or scriptural problems with my position.
I have history and the view of the overwhelming majority of church fathers, while the Catholic church has a few conveniently wrong translations, quotes taken out of context, and forged documents.
No, you side stepped the problems by trying to quote some church fathers talking about “The Church in Ephesis” and pretending like the Roman Catholic church would
NEVER NEVER NEVER let such a thing be seen by church members, lest they find out “the truth”… The problem is, you’re wrong… We Catholic layety study these church letters all the time, we get them through both Catholic
and non-Catholic sources. The problem is these church letters don’t say what you seem to want them to say.
They don’t contradict the primacy of St. Peter. They don’t contradict St. Peter’s seat in Rome. They don’t talk about
ANY bishop of Rome picking up and moving Constantiple when the political winds changed, then declaring the seat of Peter will now be in Constantinople and not Rome.
More over these letters don’t explain how even though Christ as well as the insipred (written) word of God in Sacrad scripture put so much emphisis on Peter. You are Peter (Cephas) and on this Rock (Cephas) I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Well the (Roman) Catholic church is still in tact, in the same configuration it was when it was originally setup by Christ. Sounds like God kept his promise. More over Peter alone is mentioned what? 120+ times in the Bible? And I believe all other Apostles are mentioned what? 90 times combined? How do you get around the gramatical, logical consitancies here with Peter’s primacy? How do you get around the focus on Peter? And what single surviving Patriarch can the group claim speaks for all Orthodox Churchs? And again, that’s not a
knock against your faith, I’m not trying
bad mouth Eastern Orthodoxy. Again I’ve always viewed the conglomeration of like minded churches positivly because of the long, good faith tradition (2nd longest in history).
But when it comes to matters of historical fact, basic historical logic and basic scriptual logic… The Eastern Orthodoxy’s case that
it was
thee Church set up by Christ and
not a split is on
shaky ground.
In the end though, our own (I assum you are at least now Orthodox? Perhaps a convert from a Western Protistant faith?) churches are already working on solving the problems for us. The Russian Patriarch and Bishop of Rome are warming up nicely. There’s even been speculation of the possiblity of reunification. God willing it should happen, we should be one as Christ prayed.
