Z
ziapueblo
Guest
ZP
The Eastern bishops submitted to Rome only because Rome was very orthodox?
- Status
ZP
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
I haven’t been following this thread, but one straightforward objection I’d have is: Who decided, in history — and who gets to decide, in theory — that the Bishop of Rome crosses the line? If the primacy can be transferred from Rome to Constantinople, or even from Constantinople to Moscow, who gets the say?
In other words, if the office of primacy can be transferred because it can be compromised, then who gets to decide when said church compromises the office?
Last time I checked, there is no ecumenical council that condemned the alleged excesses of Rome.
Ultimately, and more generally, the Orthodox have a circular argument: To them, the true church is the one that accepts the true councils, and the true councils are the ones accepted by the true church.
OK, but there are multiple Eastern communions, each with their own listings of the “authentic” ecumenical councils.
The only way out of the circle is if Christ granted a central figure of catholic communion. Oh! And he did, in Peter. As Cyprian said back in the AD 250s — even with all his bickering with the bishop of Rome — Rome is truly the Chair of the Church, as it is Peter’s chair, and all who leave it enter into schism. This is no novel theory but right from the early Church — and I’d argue, from the lips of Christ himself, who named Peter the unifying Rock of the Church (Matt 16:18).
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Does not sound much different than the circular argument used by Catholics.
Peter is the central fugure for the Church on earth. How do we know that well because the Bible says so in Mat 16:18. How do we know Jesus meant it the way Catholics believe it to be? Well because the CC interpreted it that way (yes Orthodox also believe first among equals but definitely not the way Catholics understand this.). How can the Catholics decide to interpret it this way. Well because they have the authority based on Peter stated in Matthew by Jesus… and then the drums sound.
Unless you come and say you have faith and believe all rests on Peter then you are not breaking your circle either. Difference is just that that doesn’t make you right, just very faithful.
Regards.
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Well this is the problem, isn’t it? He, according to Catholicism , cannot be judged by anyone.
(This also relates to the circle stated above. There could be a few more)
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
History ergo, Catholics can show it is a straight line NOT a circular argument. Show where the name “Orthodox Church” appears anywhere in the beginning. It’s NOT there.RealisticCatholic:
Does not sound much different than the circular argument used by Catholics.
Peter is the central fugure for the Church on earth. How do we know that well because the Bible says so in Mat 16:18. How do we know Jesus meant it the way Catholics believe it to be? Well because the CC interpreted it that way (yes Orthodox also believe first among equals but definitely not the way Catholics understand this.). How can the Catholics decide to interpret it this way. Well because they have the authority based on Peter stated in Matthew by Jesus… and then the drums sound.
Unless you come and say you have faith and believe all rests on Peter then you are not breaking your circle either. Difference is just that that doesn’t make you right, just very faithful.
Regards.
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Hi Mr steve-b
You may not realise because this argument is your normal response and I have seen it countless times. We have been through this already. And so have numerous others with you as well. Due to this, rather refer back to your activity history as I am sure if this goes forward it will just mirror one of those countless events.
Therefore my point stands!
Have a great day.
You may not realise because this argument is your normal response and I have seen it countless times. We have been through this already. And so have numerous others with you as well. Due to this, rather refer back to your activity history as I am sure if this goes forward it will just mirror one of those countless events.
Therefore my point stands!
Have a great day.
S
steve-b
Guest
IOW you still have no answer
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Just not one one I have not heard before or a reply you have not heard before. Like I said. Check you activity history 
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Mr steve-b. Let me make this clear! Once and for all.
Nobody is fooled by your irrelevant question which has been answered SO MANY TIMES BY SO MANY PEOPLE. And this is no joke! Really check that! You have been asking this question for 14 years (give or take, you are going on about it more than anyone worries, Catholic and non-Catholic alike).
I do not believe for a second you actually checked the history of your activity as we have been through this rather EXTENSIVELY. it is a while ago. And you use this a lot. I do not feel the need to just mirror that again. I AM CERTAIN I know what you will say as you say it all the time. And I will just say what I said that time. So please Sir, save us the time and do you own “checking”.
As a side note. I have wondered on so many occasions if you are just a Bot that “reacts” to these kind of things with “Exactly the same way”. Really dude. Come on.
Have a great day!
Nobody is fooled by your irrelevant question which has been answered SO MANY TIMES BY SO MANY PEOPLE. And this is no joke! Really check that! You have been asking this question for 14 years (give or take, you are going on about it more than anyone worries, Catholic and non-Catholic alike).
I do not believe for a second you actually checked the history of your activity as we have been through this rather EXTENSIVELY. it is a while ago. And you use this a lot. I do not feel the need to just mirror that again. I AM CERTAIN I know what you will say as you say it all the time. And I will just say what I said that time. So please Sir, save us the time and do you own “checking”.
As a side note. I have wondered on so many occasions if you are just a Bot that “reacts” to these kind of things with “Exactly the same way”. Really dude. Come on.
Have a great day!
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Dude. I am not your archivist! Since I have been on here this was your ploy.
I have no issue that you keep asking this. It has absolutely NO relevance on anything. You will just never get your answer (as you expect… properly referenced).
Good day Mr Steve-b. I tried to make you realise YOUR fallacy. Your question is very subjective and I hope you realise that some day.
Regards
I have no issue that you keep asking this. It has absolutely NO relevance on anything. You will just never get your answer (as you expect… properly referenced).
Good day Mr Steve-b. I tried to make you realise YOUR fallacy. Your question is very subjective and I hope you realise that some day.
Regards
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
I called your bluff and you folded.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Oh my word!
If by your standards I folded just because I will not do your history work (big for a guy claiming Newman and history) then I happily fold
I also have a life and can do only so much for a fellow Christian. God bless Mr Steve-b. Untill next time.
If by your standards I folded just because I will not do your history work (big for a guy claiming Newman and history) then I happily fold
I also have a life and can do only so much for a fellow Christian. God bless Mr Steve-b. Untill next time.
S
steve-b
Guest
There has been no answer given to the question I asked. THAT’S WHY YOU can’t give the answer. I called your bluff. And you folded.Oh my word!
If by your standards I folded just because I will not do your history work (big for a guy claiming Newman and history) then I happily fold
I also have a life and can do only so much for a fellow Christian. God bless Mr Steve-b. Untill next time.
R
RealisticCatholic
Guest
No, that’s not circular, because it’s not what I’m talking about.
Although I disagree with your point, anyway, I’m talking about something else.
I started by bringing up that various Eastern communions claim to be the true Church, because they claim to have the true councils. But they also claim that the true councils are the ones called so by the true church.
So, for example, you have this:
Oriental Orthodox: “True Church ===> True Councils ===> True Church ===> True Councils… etc., etc.”
Eastern Orthodox: “True Church ===> True Councils ===> True Church ===> True Councils… etc., etc.”
But the Catholic Church does not face this problem. Whether you agree with the Catholic claim or not, it’s besides the point that the Catholic Church does not face the circular issue when determining the true Church, if we judge it based on its own self-prescribed requirements. And that requirement is communion with Peter.
To see this in reality, just ask an Eastern Orthodox why you should be EO and not Oriental Orthodox. Or ask an Oriental Orthodox why they should be an OO and not Eastern Orthodox.
With no center of communion, at best one can say is claim that we are the orthodox ones. Because we accept the true councils. Etc. There is no inherent reason why one grouping of churches or another is guaranteed orthodoxy. To them, if they admit it, Rome is as corruptible as Constantinople as is Antioch as is Moscow.
But this flies in the face of early Christianity, which saw communion with Rome as guarantee of orthodoxy and universal catholic communion.
Although I disagree with your point, anyway, I’m talking about something else.
I started by bringing up that various Eastern communions claim to be the true Church, because they claim to have the true councils. But they also claim that the true councils are the ones called so by the true church.
So, for example, you have this:
Oriental Orthodox: “True Church ===> True Councils ===> True Church ===> True Councils… etc., etc.”
Eastern Orthodox: “True Church ===> True Councils ===> True Church ===> True Councils… etc., etc.”
But the Catholic Church does not face this problem. Whether you agree with the Catholic claim or not, it’s besides the point that the Catholic Church does not face the circular issue when determining the true Church, if we judge it based on its own self-prescribed requirements. And that requirement is communion with Peter.
To see this in reality, just ask an Eastern Orthodox why you should be EO and not Oriental Orthodox. Or ask an Oriental Orthodox why they should be an OO and not Eastern Orthodox.
With no center of communion, at best one can say is claim that we are the orthodox ones. Because we accept the true councils. Etc. There is no inherent reason why one grouping of churches or another is guaranteed orthodoxy. To them, if they admit it, Rome is as corruptible as Constantinople as is Antioch as is Moscow.
But this flies in the face of early Christianity, which saw communion with Rome as guarantee of orthodoxy and universal catholic communion.
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
But the answer had been given. As I stated. CHECK YOUR HISTORY!
Whether ai called your bluff is pretty much sybjective at this point. Let that go…
Whether ai called your bluff is pretty much sybjective at this point. Let that go…
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
S
steve-b
Guest
Can’t prove a negative. You’re the one who claims it’s there. Prove it.
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
And I did fold according to YOUR STANDARD.
Take note here. A very human centric view! GOD HAVE MERCY!
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Dude!
STEVE-B
Please start to act realistic!
It is really not that big a problem. .
Point and case. Point!
STEVE-B
Please start to act realistic!
It is really not that big a problem. .
Point and case. Point!
M
MichaelP3
Guest
So Easy!
Follow Newman! And not the one you were thought to follow but the actual history one! That will at least put us on some kind of same path. If that doesn’t work for you well then you need to study some more !!!@!!!
After you get to that point! Please contact me. Then maybe you are there!
Follow Newman! And not the one you were thought to follow but the actual history one! That will at least put us on some kind of same path. If that doesn’t work for you well then you need to study some more !!!@!!!
After you get to that point! Please contact me. Then maybe you are there!
Last edited:
- Status