Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[prodromos]

Respect is earned. So much for earning it, eh?

How is history supposed to earn your respect?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How is history supposed to earn your respect?

That sir, is deflecting.

 

[Philip_B]

No, the pope is patriarch of the West.

You say no and speak words of agreement.

 

[Philip_B]

That sir, is deflecting.

You are a good teacher.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You say no and speak words of agreement.

The "no" relates to, "So now they are the Councils of the Western Church." They are Ecumenical councils held in the West.

 

[prodromos]

That sir, is deflecting.

You butcher history, and when I point that out you talk about earning respect?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You butcher history, and when I point that out you talk about earning respect?

I have learned not to accept your epithets. So, what you've written is irrelevant.

 

[prodromos]

I have learned not to accept your epithets. So, what you've written is irrelevant.

To you, perhaps.

 

[Tigran1245]

No, the pope is patriarch of the West. I don't think that has ever been in dispute. The pope is also head of the entire Catholic Church. Of course, the Orthodox, or many of the Orthodox, don't want to agree to that. They want to have their own arrangements. They say they believe in a collegiate approach. I don't think that they do. I think that is evidenced by the current dispute between the ecumenical patriarch in Istanbul, the patriarch of Moscow, and the patriarch of the Ukrainian church. There's a lot of disputes between the Orthodoxies of the east. And of course, the Oriental Orthodox don't play along with the Orthodox, nor Do the Coptic Christians, nor do the Ethiopian churches.

Of course, there are many disputes in the Orthodox world. But they concern only minor differences. Which do not affect faith or are very insignificant.

But none of us calls for blessing homosexuals, no one introduces new religious dogmas that never existed. No one invents new doctrines of faith. And if someone has a private opinion, it remains private.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hey, gentle now. The Great Schism and its causes are public information, and @Xeno.of.athens is almost certainly informed about this period of church history. People can be well-informed and still, for an assortment of reasons, choose to be part of the Western branch of Christianity rather than the Eastern branch.

Yes so how can a person know that there was a disagreement between several apostolic successors and one of them was excommunicated by all the others and still say that the one who was excommunicated has theological infallibility? Sometimes it seems as though some people choose their church in a similar way to choosing their favorite football team. It’s more about which one appeals the them more than which one remained genuine.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Orthodox in Constantinople slaughtered the Latin speaking population in their city. That is an atrocity.

When did that happen?

 

[dzheremi]

And of course, the Oriental Orthodox don't play along with the Orthodox, nor Do the Coptic Christians, nor do the Ethiopian churches.

The Oriental Orthodox and the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches, you say?

You're kind of telling on yourself that you are out of your depth here, friend...and not even on a matter that is terribly difficult to get straight. Perhaps you should, as the kids say, 'stay in your own lane', and not bring up other communions that you know very little about as though we help your case against the Eastern Orthodox in particular. I can assure you that when it comes to the rejection of Rome, there is very little daylight between us and them. The break may have been made under wildly different conditions and at different times, but the ecclesiological heresies of Rome that are unacceptable to them are also unacceptable to us, and this is obviously without having conspired to make it be so. That ought to give you or any reasonable reader pause.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When did that happen?

Some years after 1054.

The Massacre of the Latins (Italian: Massacro dei Latini; Greek: Σφαγὴ τῶν Λατίνων) was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic (called "Latin") inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in April 1182.[1][2]​

​

The Roman Catholics of Constantinople at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector.[1] Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at 60,000 at the time by Eustathius of Thessalonica,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were devastated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the (Turkish) Sultanate of Rum.[3][4]​

​

The massacre further worsened relations and increased enmity between the Western and Eastern Christian churches,[5] and a sequence of hostilities between the two followed. [Wikipedia]​

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Orthodox in Constantinople slaughtered the Latin speaking population in their city. That is an atrocity.

Ok your talking about a revolt that took place that was not sanctioned by the church at all, as compared to atrocities committed by the ROC that was specifically sanctioned by the Pope and not just one pope but 98 more popes that succeeded him as well that spanned 686 years. I don’t see how you could possibly say that the EOC was responsible for those events.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Oriental Orthodox and the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches, you say?

You're kind of telling on yourself that you are out of your depth here, friend...and not even on a matter that is terribly difficult to get straight. Perhaps you should, as the kids say, 'stay in your own lane', and not bring up other communions that you know very little about as though we help your case against the Eastern Orthodox in particular. I can assure you that when it comes to the rejection of Rome, there is very little daylight between us and them. The break may have been made under wildly different conditions and at different times, but the ecclesiological heresies of Rome that are unacceptable to them are also unacceptable to us, and this is obviously without having conspired to make it be so. That ought to give you or any reasonable reader pause.

It does not bother me that you see yourselves as sharing the view of the Eastern and Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox generally are polite and not unpleasant to deal with. That is not the case in CF, at least not with all of the Eastern Orthodox. But I have encountered a good number of Orthodox who seemed to feel it is their duty to call the Catholic Church Heretical and a number of other things. From my perspective they are just growing the schism that they are in. It is as if they were rehearsing all the reasons that Protestants trot out for disliking Catholics and giving them an Orthodox spin. You are welcome to jump into their boat too, if that's what you want to do.

 

[dzheremi]

The point, Xeno.of.Athens, is that you're not gaining anything by bringing up the fact that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox disagree with one another when the substance of this thread (Rome's ecclesiological claims) is not something that we disagree on. It likely further hurts your position in the eyes of anyone who knows the basics of wider Church history (in the very elementary sense of who is in communion with who) when you write things like "the Oriental Orthodox, the Coptic Christians, and the Ethiopian churches", because the Coptic and Ethiopian churches are both Oriental Orthodox, so this would be like saying "the Roman Catholic Church doesn't agree with XYZ, and neither does the Church of Spain, or the Church of Malta." Spain and Malta are two very famously Roman Catholic countries, so their national churches make up the Roman Catholic Church as it is known in their part of the world, and are not something separate from it such that this kind of distinction makes any sense.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The point, Xeno.of.Athens, is that you're not gaining anything by bringing up the fact that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox disagree with one another when the substance of this thread (Rome's ecclesiological claims) is not something that we disagree on. It likely further hurts your position in the eyes of anyone who knows the basics of wider Church history (in the very elementary sense of who is in communion with who) when you write things like "the Oriental Orthodox, the Coptic Christians, and the Ethiopian churches", because the Coptic and Ethiopian churches are both Oriental Orthodox, so this would be like saying "the Roman Catholic Church doesn't agree with XYZ, and neither does the Church of Spain, or the Church of Malta." Spain and Malta are two very famously Roman Catholic countries, so their national churches make up the Roman Catholic Church as it is known in their part of the world, and are not something separate from it such that this kind of distinction makes any sense.

The point is that there are differences between, the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Catholic Church.

From my perspective, the Orthodox Church is in schism, some more than others. The Oriental Orthodox Church is just an entirely different matter, whether it is in schism or not is to be decided. I prefer to deal with people as they present themselves and as they present their point of view. In CF some of the Orthodox present their point of view with hostile terminology, I do not particularly like dealing with them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

He does not bother me that. you see yourselves as sharing the view of the E and Orthodox. The eastern Orthodox generally are polite and not unpleasant to deal with. That is not the case in CF, at least not with all of the eastern Orthodox. But I didn't see if I have encountered a good number of Orthodox who seemed to feel it is their duty to call The Catholic Church Heretical and a number of other things. From my perspective they are just growing the schism that they are in. It is as if they were rehearsing all the reasons that Protestants trot out for disliking Catholics and giving them an Orthodox spin. You are welcome to jump into their boat too, if that's what you want to do..

I just want to say that I didn’t want to even mention the atrocities committed by Rome. The only reason it came into the discussion was because it is an imperative piece of evidence concerning the leadership of the Roman church during that time. When we discuss the schism and we come to a point where we have to determine which side of the schism was in the wrong the actions of each side play a significant role in that decision process. The point of mentioning those atrocities was to show that not only was Rome completely alone in its claim to papal supremacy and authority over of all the other apostolic churches but to provide further evidence that the leadership had been corrupted at that time. Furthermore I want to emphasize that I am not an EOC member nor have I ever been one. So my views on the subject do not reflect on the EOC or its members they are my own personal conclusions based on my own study of church history. I found my information from secular sources like Britannica.com and Wikipedia not from spurious or church related materials because I wanted nonbiased information. Also my findings on this subject only reflect the state of the ROC leadership during that particular time, not the present state of the church as it is today. I actually defend many ROC traditions here in CF so I’m not an anti ROC zealot. Im not here to attack the ROC, all I’m trying to do is present the evidence as it appears in history so that people who haven’t received that information can make a more informed decision on what took place at the time of the schism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I just want to say that I didn’t want to even mention the atrocities committed by Rome. The only reason it came into the discussion was because it is an imperative piece of evidence concerning the leadership of the Roman church during that time. When we discuss the schism and we come to a point where we have to determine which side of the schism was in the wrong the actions of each side play a significant role in that decision process.

But we do not need to determine which side was at fault and which was not at fault. That is a mug's game. History is history, plays itself out in a context, but we. do not have full access to. It is better to be content with the facts and leave the interpretations to historians who seem to enjoy that kind of thing.

The point of mentioning those atrocities was to show that not only was Rome completely alone in its claim to papal supremacy and authority over of all the other apostolic churches but to provide further evidence that the leadership had been corrupted at that time.

I'm not so sure that at the time, that is to say at 1054 AD, that the area of dispute was papal authority. A good number of things were in dispute. But jurisdiction was certainly one of them.

Furthermore I want to emphasize that I am not an EOC member nor have I ever been one. So my views on the subject do not reflect on the EOC or its members they are my own personal conclusions based on my own study of church history. I found my information from secular sources like Britannica.com and Wikipedia not from spurious or church related materials because I wanted nonbiased information.

I don't know why you believed that you would be getting non biassed information from Britannica and from Wikipedia.

Also my findings on this subject only reflect the state of the ROC leadership during that particular time, not the present state of the church as it is today. I actually defend many ROC traditions here in CF so I’m not an anti ROC zealot. Im not here to attack the ROC, all I’m trying to do is present the evidence as it appears in history so that people who haven’t received that information can make a more informed decision on what took place at the time of the schism.

What is ROC?

 

[Philip_B]

I just want to say that I didn’t want to even mention the atrocities committed by Rome. The only reason it came into the discussion was because it is an imperative piece of evidence concerning the leadership of the Roman church during that time. When we discuss the schism and we come to a point where we have to determine which side of the schism was in the wrong the actions of each side play a significant role in that decision process. The point of mentioning those atrocities was to show that not only was Rome completely alone in its claim to papal supremacy and authority over of all the other apostolic churches but to provide further evidence that the leadership had been corrupted at that time. Furthermore I want to emphasize that I am not an EOC member nor have I ever been one. So my views on the subject do not reflect on the EOC or its members they are my own personal conclusions based on my own study of church history. I found my information from secular sources like Britannica.com and Wikipedia not from spurious or church related materials because I wanted nonbiased information. Also my findings on this subject only reflect the state of the ROC leadership during that particular time, not the present state of the church as it is today. I actually defend many ROC traditions here in CF so I’m not an anti ROC zealot. Im not here to attack the ROC, all I’m trying to do is present the evidence as it appears in history so that people who haven’t received that information can make a more informed decision on what took place at the time of the schism.

Do you mean RCC (as in Roman Catholic Church) or ROC (Russian Orthodox Church)?