Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Mortal sin... how do you, or anyone else (including the Pope) know that it's mortal? Only God is the judge here, and he's also far more powerful than the devil!

Quote

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:23, RSV)

It is the Holy Spirit which guided the true Successors of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, which meant guiding them as to what is (and is not) sinful.  It is only in these Last Days that, like Pope Honorius I, has the claimants to the See of Peter fallen into apostasy and heresy.  Is such scandalous?  Yes, absolutely; however, the universal Ordinary Magisterium is absolutely immutable, coming as it did from the immutable One and Triune God through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, a Perfect Being.

You have no one to guide you, Nick, except your Orthodox bishop who cannot agree with his fellow bishops on what is fundamentally true.  And, then, there are the Coptic Christians.  They hold both Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox to be in error.  So, why should we believe you other them?

These divisions are not, in my opinion, what the Holy Spirit willed (or wills) for the One True Church, and there is absolutely nothing that you could ever say to me that would convince me that Eastern Orthodoxy is the religion which Christ willed.  I can provide you with a plethora of quotes from Saint Augustine and those Fathers before him which asserted the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and you will not be able to provide a single quote from anyone who took Saint Augustine to task for his claims.  At a very minimum, asserting the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (or, at least the chair) is neither heretical nor false, and the alternative, well, there is none, at least as far as I am concerned.  What you (and, the Coptics, too) propose is a Church without a head, a view no different from Protestantism with its plethora of "private interpretations."  Even sedes assert the immutability and primacy of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which no Pope is free to change, but obviously, free to deny, as scandalous as that may be.

been taught by the Church Fathers..

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Hello all!

.

.

I

 now l'd like your comment on the following quote
t. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)

We haven't established that you're in the True Church (historical evidence and logic points to being the schismatic church), so Vatican 1 really carries no weight for me.

Yes, I've already hashed out infallibility, and it never seemed to apply in the same way it does now to Roman bishops. Pope Honorious I was anathematized by both west and east as a heretic, for example, until this got in the way of increasing Roman claims to authority, and they stopped anathematizing him. Popes are quite fallible, and "ex-cathedra" is a flexible, debatable category that means nothing and amounts to little more than political butt covering.

Proof texts are actually pretty weak, although Protestants and those of a like mindset love them. Read them in the context of history and solid (not changing, or "developing") Tradition, and it'll mean something else to you. I won't bother posting Orthodox links that discuss this further, since there's many websites that hash it out in detail that you can look up in google in 10 seconds. I've read all of them, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, already.

what are you talking about when you say proof texts are weak? I'm giving you a quote..you can't comment on it because it goes against your beliefs..is that it?

the following is an exchange between trad catholics, the Dimond brothers ( who some here think are extreme) and an eastern orthodox..can you answer his question I bolded below?

Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17).  St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church.  This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16).  All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn’t be true popes, but (logically) antipopes.  This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.

 

I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages.  This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent.  (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils’ teaching.)

 

On the other hand, Eastern “Orthodoxy,” since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical.  As I said to you on the telephone, Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). “Eastern Orthodoxy” would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II!  But if we apply the principles of Eastern “Orthodoxy,” the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops.  Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it’s a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical!   Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

 
Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787?  Doesn’t it strike you as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern “Orthodox” arbitrarily reject as “not accepted by the Church,” even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept?  What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence’s teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could you logically say that Florence was not accepted “by the Church,” while other councils were?  What are the criteria?  I’ve asked many Eastern “Orthodox this very question and received no answer simply because they have none.  Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

 

Jay, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as you will see if you honestly and deeply think about it.  In E. Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite.  If the “Church” spoke at Constantinople I because 150 bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the “Church” spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops!  It is inescapable, therefore, that according to the Eastern “Orthodox” position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils.  This contradicts the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail and that God would be with His Church always (Mt. 16).  Eastern “Orthodoxy” is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all.  That’s why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith.  I guess the fact that E. Orthodoxy does not – and cannot – really believe in any dogmatic councils (as shown above) is why it’s so appealing to so many: it’s provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.

 

By the way, I think we agree that the post-Vatican II sect is a huge manifestation of evil at the very least, a Counter Church of the Devil.  Well, the post-Vatican II sect loves Eastern Orthodoxy.  That should tell you something.  If E. Orthodoxy were true, the post-Vatican II antipopes would hate it.  The post-Vatican II antipopes, whose mission from the Devil is to embrace all the major breaches of God’s truth in history (the pagan religions, the Islamic religion, the heretical sects and the E. Orthodox schism) reaches out to and wants to unite with E. Orthodoxy (and Protestantism) because the Devil knows that E. Orthodoxy was one of those major movements of rejection of God’s truth by which he has ensnared millions of souls

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

been taught by the Church Fathers..

Saint Augustine, a Church father, taught us the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/09/augustine-on-papacy.html

Again, you and most other Roman Catholics make the logical leap from Peter and how he was broadly understood at the time to work in the early Church, to infallible, universal jurisdiction of specifically the Bishop of Rome, one of the (but not the only!) successors of the Apostle Peter. This text does not establish how Peter was regarded in the early Church, how Rome and the other Sees were united, and who's best followed such precedents.

The Primacy and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff 1 [From the epistle (12) "Quamvis Patrum traditio" to the African bishops, March 21, 418]

109 Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this judgment by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended . . . ; since therefore PETER the head is of such (Treat authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters . . . not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.

How is this different than the apostles?  Did anything of the sort keep them from proselytizing?

Actually, martyrdom did just that. The Christian Church was generally small and oppressed for its first 500 years.

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

been taught by the Church Fathers..

Saint Augustine, a Church father, taught us the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/09/augustine-on-papacy.html

Again, you and most other Roman Catholics make the logical leap from Peter and how he was broadly understood at the time to work in the early Church, to infallible, universal jurisdiction of specifically the Bishop of Rome, one of the (but not the only!) successors of the Apostle Peter. This text does not establish how Peter was regarded in the early Church, how Rome and the other Sees were united, and who's best followed such precedents.

Consider the Miracle of the Sun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

The Miracle of Calanda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

The Miracle of Lanciano:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

You can believe, if you wish, that the Holy Spirit is allowing authentic miracles to occur in a false religion, but I don't.

P.S.  Even the Orthodox consider the Bishop of Rome to be infallible with other Bishops, when he is present at an ecuмenical Council.  Of course, how could a heretic ever be infallible?

Quote

The Primacy and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff 1 [From the epistle (12) "Quamvis Patrum traditio" to the African bishops, March 21, 418]

109 Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this judgment by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of PETER, from whom it has itself descended . . . ; since therefore PETER the head is of such (Treat authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters . . . not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.

http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=10&title=Denzinger+101-199&page=1

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Hyperdox Nick

Haha yup, you're right there. The Orthodox haven't done a very good job of proselytising. Mostly because when they haven't been actively persecuted, they've been too poor to do much. Also, the ethnic silos haven't helped.

How is this different than the apostles?  Did anything of the sort keep them from proselytizing?

Actually, martyrdom did just that. The Christian Church was generally small and oppressed for its first 500 years.

It may have been small overall, but that didn't stop the proselytization.  The increase in numbers was dramatic.  As far as I can see the "Orthodox" does no such proselytizing.  Therefore, complaining about persecution and poverty doesn't work.  But hey, they are in good company with the VII church when it comes to failing in proselytization.