Why? I mean I have no reason not to trust this priest/missionary. I guess I just do not get hung up in skepticism unless it seems warranted. Miracles still happen and the Church is chalked full of mystics and saints even modern ones who proved this to me. I have no reason also not to trust our exorcist or priest and Bishops in deliverance ministry. They act as a negative evidence to me. I do not have to understand something fully to believe God does it and in fact that is the fun of all mysteries.
The reason for skepticism is that I gave valid alternatives to the story's miraculousness, eg. They could have a translator who gave some general remarks, the priest gave a talk, the people followed imagining what he was saying, and then the priest left thinking that they miraculously understood each word.
Then he told you about this incident without filling in enough to details to prove whether it was a miracle or if it was the natural alternative.
There are people who believe they can talk to animals and the animals understand them. And I don't mean just Go fetch.
I'm skeptical.
Oh that is simply not true. But you will never know unless you read the dialog that I may have(if someone wants to continue it). To me and to many the historical and biblical pieces of the puzzle fit together nicely to make a whole.
Yes it's true because you called them "puzzle pieces", which they wouldn't be if explicit. In Church tradition, you shouldn't have to argue "puzzle pieces" to prove doctrine so important. If it's "puzzle pieces" then per harmonization of tradition you should accept that there are different opinions and allow them.
Secondly, I know what I said is true because I just googled it and read what a Catholic website claims shows papal supremacy in the councils. In the course of the article the Catholic site complains about the 4th Ecumenical on this issue :
in one of the most pernicious acts in Church history, the Council approved the infamous Canon 28:
"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."
In this canon, the Council not only reaffirmed the bogus power grab of Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople, but here the Council pushed Constantinople
to "equal" standing with Rome,
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co...y/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html
So there you have it, supporters of Papal supremacy complaining about the Ecumenical canons as "pernicious" and admitting that they support the Orthodox position.
At this point, the issue is pretty closed because you are stuck arguing against something explicit in the Ecumenical canons.
No I actually have multiple main stream protestant, Jewish sources, and even Messianic Jewish sources that also agree biblically to the Jewish fulfillment of the Papacy in regards to the Davidic covenant. I can quote them
"Fulfillment of the Papacy" in some general mainstream protestant mind does not equal absolute vertical papal supremacy as you and I know.
Sorry, it is not helpful for you to misportray it as if mainstream Protestants are explicitly declaring support for papal supremacy vertically over Eastern Patriachs.
Well Feel free to continue the one on one dialog with me then and I will. If not hopefully someone will and then you will see. But until then you will have to wait. Hmmm explicit only huh?? Tha sounds very protestant or even cultic.
Lol, you don't have numerous fathers that actually teach vertical papal supremacy, only chains of inferences.
No offense but let me explain. Were you a protestant before becoming and Orthodox? I would guess yes because your seem to be infected with the same radical skepticism(traced back to Ockaham) that they seem to have yet its totally unfounded.
Yes, I was Protestant, but anyway cradle Orthodox do not want their church to convert to Catholicism under the Pope either.
Again beleiving only explicit evidence is absurd and is like a JW asking you "let me know when the 1st century Christians Church spoke explicitly in full detail doctrine of the Trinity". You see your dilemma.
No, it's not absurd because the pre-schism Church did teach trinity, enshrined in the Councils. But it did not have a consensus favoring Papal Supremacy in 1000 years. That's a big difference. It's so obvious, why am I still arguing about this?
I respect the C. Church, but if we were with JWs, then yes I would ask them for explicit text, or for their best two Bible quotes against Trinity. But I am familiar enough with the arguments.
But to always want a explicit piece of evidence for the full blown dogma right there is well its absurd. Now I can show you in ecumenical councils how the Eastern Fathers admitted the Bishops or Rome's universal authority and i can show you in historical cases going to the 2nd and 3rd century in local councils how this also happened in the East. But you know its not gonna always be laid out defined at the times you want then to be.
Exactly. They never actually said such an important teaching, since if they actually intended to, they would have laid it out so you could understand in the course of, say, 1000 years.
Why am I still talking about this?
Sometimes the Holy Spirit waits to define a dogma till later. I mean protestant fundamentalist do the same thing with infant baptism. Show me where the bible explicilty says's its ok to baptize infants and then I will go along with it.
Tradition explicitly teaches infant baptism and trinity. It does not have some kind of consensus or Eastern Fathers clear support for the Roman Pope to rule over their leaders like an emperor.
Evidence can also be strongly implied as well for dogma and practice and even the Orthodox know this. So don't act like everything always has to be explicit.
When you are talking about something heavily disputed between EOs and Cs, to be constructive you are going to want something detailed, clear and direct, not something that people just argue back and forth about.
Otherwise, it's like "the Peter is the rock" argument with a chain of unnecessary inferences that EOs don't agree with.
When it comes to 1000 years of tradition on a major issue, it's a pretty tough sell if explicit evidence from the East is minimal.
No one is interested in converting you. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. I want to do a ecumenical dialog which clearly you do not understand.
The job of the HS is to convert Orthodox to Catholicism vertically under the fallible Pope who claims infallible powers, even though his predecessor didn't?
The HS wants Christians to unite. But that does not mean the same as converting to Catholicism.
Big problem is treating Pope like he has miracle infallibility powers whenever he talks ex cathedra. But Pope can be a heretic and deposed. This is a potentially dangerous teaching.
I don't particularly have an ax to grind with Cs. But C rule of celibacy for all priests is a good example of what I see as a problem teaching. That's why many E.C.s left the C. Church. I think simply converting to Catholicism under the Pope is a mistake. Sometimes the Pope makes heretic teachings and Orthodox need independence like Chalcedon says in order to be safe when that happens. This is what I believe.