He could quite capably, but I suspect that he thinks discussions like this are a waste of time. A conclusion that I and apparently many others (LionHeart77, SanctusPecator, livingwordunity, etc.) can agree with.
Just a point of clarification in response: yes, I COULD come up with my own arguments (and I would choose to argue for the supremacy of the Pope from Sacred Scripture since we can both be sure of the texts), but I’m not sure it would be the best use of my time. At some point, you have to shake the dust from your feet and move on.
However, please recall that I posted the LONG list of heretical Eastern Patriarchs from Dave Armstrong in direct response to a question from jimmy (post #314). By contrast, you folks have pinned all your hopes on one heretical Pope - Honorius, and that claim has been demonstrated in other threads to be baseless. Are there others? Names? Details?
My quotes from Armstrong can be found in posts #320 & #321, and IMO, the answer to his question was this:
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.
At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.
Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.
Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.
Roman Steadfastness
No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius - none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself. The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige - the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, Rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the Catholic claims. An Orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical stance assuredly cannot.
Is there any dispute concerning Dave’s calculations of the amount of time the East was in heresy?
Quibble if you will, but that facts of history are that Rome was steadfastly orthodox while the East was frequently heterodox. Fortunately, Peter has continuously strengthened his brothers - just as Jesus commanded.
