Formal Debate Peanut Gallery Thread -- Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue -- The Office of the Papacy

[Athanasias]

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.

I know you are skeptical but I am not. So I don't worry about it I just accept it as the Church does. After studying 2000 years of saints and mystics in the Church with all kinds of supernatural gifts I just do not have this skepticism anymore. And that is not how it happened according to him. He was even amazed and admitted it was a supernatural miracle. The true gifts of tongues by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

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 :

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.

You will never know unless you do the one on one dialog with me.

"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.

Again you will never know until you dialog with me. This is very strong evidence and in some commentaries even admitted by protestants how strong this is. If given the chance in dialog I will quote a well known commentary and you can reference it yourself but you'll never know unless you do the one on one dialog. or unless someone else does and you read our dialog.

Lol, you don't have numerous fathers that actually teach vertical papal supremacy, only chains of inferences.


Yes, I was Protestant, but anyway cradle Orthodox do not want their church to convert to Catholicism under the Pope either.

Actually its a combo of explicit and implicit that is very logical and strong here. But you will never know unless you read my dialog or join in it. And yes I can tell you were a protestant as your radical skepticism(which is a trait many but not all of them have) is still lingering on in many issues. Good Ol Ockham he still is haunting us today with his influence on Luther.

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.

Here you seem to argue like a fundamentalist protestant again and not like a Orthodox Christian(at least not like any I ever came in contact with). Calm down and time to listen to what I said. I admit the Trinity is implied in the first century but its not explicit and it took 4 centuries and 2 ecumenical councils for the Holy Spirit to develop this in time and the Church to formally define it in time. So yeah if you used your own criteria and apply it to the Trinity(which is the central Christian mystery or Dogma) then yes the JW's would have got you on that. Now of course I would politely disagree that the Papal authority was not recognized by the east in the first 1000 years. I would argue that even in the first century and centuries 1-5 show this it was. I can use Eastern Bishops and fathers and local and ecumencial councils. But you will never know all the evidence I can demonstrate for the Catholic beleif unless you dialog with me or read my dialogs on this (if someone will take up the plate). You think you know all the arguments. There are a ton. Maybe you do but maybe you don't. Do not be afraid of new evidence.

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.

Yes it does no argument there! But Tradition does this over time and not all referecne from tradition are explicit in regards to these dogma's. Tradition also teaches the assumption of Mary and Dormition but again it was until the 4th century that the Holy Spirit began to develop this in some of the Fathers and it was not full blown either till later when it entered the Liturgy.

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.

Oh I plan on going into alot of detail and I plan to be clear and direct. There is a ton of evidence for this from our POV. I was amazed to find out how much when I was in grad school studying Catholic theological tradition and the Fathers and councils and reading jewish sources and protestant ones on the scriptures. So no problem there. I want to present all the solid evidence that Catholics look to to see this doctrine and then allow the Orthodox to see for themselves and give me their opinion. This way anyone reading the dialog will see both sides and can pray about the evidence and do research and make up their own minds.

Otherwise, it's like "the Peter is the rock" argument with a chain of unnecessary inferences that EOs don't agree with.

Are you stuck on that still. Do you realize that the rock argument makes up less then 1/3 of my argument. I don't even barley quote that. There is much stronger evidence from scripture for Jewish fulfillment and Protestants and Jewsish and messianic sources also recognize this along with Catholic bible scholars. But you will never know unless you dialog with me. Or if you read my dialog with anyone who wants to do this.

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.

Yes its true the Pope can be a material heretic and be disposed in certain cases and (we had a few of these). This can also enter into the dialog especially on infallibility and what that means. But Yes I mean Jesus Christ lived, taught and died and rose so that every person on earth could be part of his Body ie the one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church. God desires full unity and all people to be Catholic. I remember a great Jesuit priest preaching that from the pulpit when I was younger at Mass. its true. As offensive as that sounds he died for all truth. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth(Jn 16:12-14) and because of that His Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Early Fathers would agree and liken the Church to the Ark of Noah. Now what ecumenical dialog does is open up both sides to prayerfully listen to each other and study. When Catholics did this with Lutherans in only 50 years they realized that we were in error on some things in regards to what lutheran actually taught and vice versa and we lifted some of the excommunications to them and also we grew close to see that we were not as far apart as we may have thought on some issues. I also saw this with my dialog with Mark. Its a great way to lay out all evidences prayerfully and respectfully and pray and study and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us. Do not be afraid.

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.

Actually we do have many married priest but your probably forgetting our Eastern Catholic clergy and maybe not aware that we also have some in the roman rite especially in the Ordinariate that Pope Benedict Created. Here I think your protestant side is coming out again. I say this because I talk to Orthodox Priest all the time at my store and I have not met many of then that have an ax to grind with celibacy because they know the reasons biblically and traditional and theologically and practically behind it. In fact all Orthodox Bishops are celibate from what I am told by them themselves. From what I am told by Orthodox themselves Orthodox priest can marry before ordination but not after.

Your also forgetting a few things. This world is oversexed and the rule of celibacy is a message to the world that one does not need intercourse to be truly happy and joyful. I know Orthodox Nuns who are celibate and monks too. Celibacy is a good practice in our oversexed world.

But here is where your protestant side is not seeing the whole picture. Not all Catholic priest are celibate. Eastern Catholic priest can marry before ordination just like Orhtodox. In fact our Eastern Catholic Maronite Catholic Cathedral here in St. louis(St. Raymonds) has a married priest. Also my "Roman Catholic" parish(St. Gabriel the Archangel) had a married priest with grandkids(Fr. Lockwood). He was a former Lutheran pastor who converted to Catholicism and ended up becoming a parish priest and teaching mariology at the Seminary. I know another soon to be ordained priest in my diocese who was a Anglican priest and has 5 kids and a wife and he will be ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood this May. So first of all its only normally in the Western or Roman rite that celibacy is a discipline. Eastern Catholic priest are allowed to me Marriad prior to ordination. And Celibacy even in the Roman Church is not an absolute and dispensations can be granted by Rome as the two local cases I talked about in my home town. The genius of Holy Mother Church is She allows both. On the Eastern side she allows marriage to show the goodness of the marital covenant in the clergy and on the western side "normally" but not always she shows the glory celibacy that Jesus and St. Paul both recommended to the Church for her ministers. A contradiction to the worlds sexuality and happiness. Catholic have the best of both worlds to put it bluntly.

 

[rakovsky]

I know you are skeptical but I am not. So I don't worry about it I just accept it as the Church does. After studying 2000 years of saints and mystics in the Church with all kinds of supernatural gifts I just do not have this skepticism anymore. And that is not how it happened according to him. He was even amazed and admitted it was a supernatural miracle. The true gifts of tongues by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

In Pentecost, the apostles spoke foreign languages, but in his case, he was not speaking a foreign language, only supposedly understood by his audience. But since he was not the audience or in their heads, he does not know firsthand how this really happened or what really happened.

Nor do I from what you've told me.

That being the case, it's hard for me to consider what I've just been told to be good evidence of speaking in tongues as a real miracle.

Feel free to get more details about possible alternatives from him and get back to me.

You will never know unless you do the one on one dialog with me.




Again you will never know until you dialog with me. This is very strong evidence and in some commentaries even admitted by protestants how strong this is. If given the chance in dialog I will quote a well known commentary and you can reference it yourself but you'll never know unless you do the one on one dialog. or unless someone else does and you read our dialog.





Actually its a combo of explicit and implicit that is very logical and strong here. But you will never know unless you read my dialog or join in it. And yes I can tell you were a protestant as your radical skepticism(which is a trait many but not all of them have) is still lingering on in many issues. Good Ol Ockham he still is haunting us today with his influence on Luther.


Here you seem to argue like a fundamentalist protestant again and not like a Orthodox Christian(at least not like any I ever came in contact with). Calm down and time to listen to what I said. I admit the Trinity is implied in the first century but its not explicit and it took 4 centuries and 2 ecumenical councils for the Holy Spirit to develop this in time and the Church to formally define it in time. So yeah if you used your own criteria and apply it to the Trinity(which is the central Christian mystery or Dogma) then yes the JW's would have got you on that. Now of course I would politely disagree that the Papal authority was not recognized by the east in the first 1000 years. I would argue that even in the first century and centuries 1-5 show this it was. I can use Eastern Bishops and fathers and local and ecumencial councils. But you will never know all the evidence I can demonstrate for the Catholic beleif unless you dialog with me or read my dialogs on this (if someone will take up the plate). You think you know all the arguments. There are a ton. Maybe you do but maybe you don't. Do not be afraid of new evidence.

Main fear is wasting my time on tangential chains of inferences in cases where the Ecumenical Councils and numerous fathers do not actually or explicitly affirm vertical papal power.
And someone is trying to mess with my head and brainwash me based on unnecessary inferences that they do.

I am fully aware how hard it was for you to accept that the French Council explicitly temporarily banned Bible reading, although to your credit you accepted it after I made a full logical proof a few times in a row.

And the 4th council was explicit in its canon AND denounced as "pernicious" by a supporter of papal supremacy.

At this point, it is just time wasting and messing with my head, with you saying for hours like a fisherman with bait on a hook telling me that you have the hidden truth about papal supremacy and that I should pray to be open to your hidden (but actually rationally non-existent) "truth".

I love this guy, but know it's not for real.

A lot of religion can be mental programming.

Otherwise you would be more interested in exploring "decentralization" mentioned by your pope. He gave you a perfectly good excuse for you to explore it by saying it. And where did he mention "decentralization"?

Best hope is that Protestant Reformation and ecumenism and liberal branches of Catholics can wake the Catholic Church up to realize that some big changes are needed in relation to issues that it disagrees with Orthodoxy on.

Catholic Church has been moving in a more ecumenical direction toward Orthodox, changing hard dogmas. Now Catholic Church allows normal joint marriages with EOs in RC churches. That process of Ecumenical reform will continue.

"Otherwise, it's like "the Peter is the rock" argument with a chain of unnecessary inferences that EOs don't agree with."
Are you stuck on that still. Do you realize that the rock argument makes up less then 1/3 of my argument.

LOL.

God desires full unity and all people to be Catholic.

In the sense of one Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Not in the sense of everyone accepting Pope as vertical ruler of everybody and papal infallibility ex cathedra.

How could God want people to accept wrong ecclesiology? If a past pope openly and correctly opposed papal infallibility, how could God want everyone to accept that wrong teaching?

This stuff is crazy brainwashing. I need to stop.

I remember a great Jesuit priest preaching that from the pulpit when I was younger at Mass. its true. As offensive as that sounds he died for all truth. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth(Jn 16:12-14) and because of that His Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Early Fathers would agree and liken the Church to the Ark of Noah. Now what ecumenical dialog does is open up both sides to prayerfully listen to each other and study. When Catholics did this with Lutherans in only 50 years they realized that we were in error on some things in regards to what lutheran actually taught and vice versa and we lifted some of the excommunications to them and also we grew close to see that we were not as far apart as we may have thought on some issues. I also saw this with my dialog with Mark. Its a great way to lay out all evidences prayerfully and respectfully and pray and study and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us. Do not be afraid.


Actually we do have many married priest but your probably forgetting our Eastern Catholic clergy and maybe not aware that we also have some in the roman rite especially in the Ordinariate that Pope Benedict Created. Here I think your protestant side is coming out again. I say this because I talk to Orthodox Priest all the time at my store and I have not met many of then that have an ax to grind with celibacy because they know the reasons biblically and traditional and theologically and practically behind it. In fact all Orthodox Bishops are celibate from what I am told by them themselves. From what I am told by Orthodox themselves Orthodox priest can marry before ordination but not after.

Your also forgetting a few things. This world is oversexed and the rule of celibacy is a message to the world that one does not need intercourse to be truly happy and joyful. I know Orthodox Nuns who are celibate and monks too. Celibacy is a good practice in our oversexed world.

But here is where your protestant side is not seeing the whole picture. Not all Catholic priest are celibate. Eastern Catholic priest can marry before ordination just like Orhtodox. In fact our Eastern Catholic Maronite Catholic Cathedral here in St. louis(St. Raymonds) has a married priest. Also my "Roman Catholic" parish(St. Gabriel the Archangel) had a married priest with grandkids(Fr. Lockwood). He was a former Lutheran pastor who converted to Catholicism and ended up becoming a parish priest and teaching mariology at the Seminary. I know another soon to be ordained priest in my diocese who was a Anglican priest and has 5 kids and a wife and he will be ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood this May. So first of all its only normally in the Western or Roman rite that celibacy is a discipline. Eastern Catholic priest are allowed to me Marriad prior to ordination. And Celibacy even in the Roman Church is not an absolute and dispensations can be granted by Rome as the two local cases I talked about in my home town. The genius of Holy Mother Church is She allows both. On the Eastern side she allows marriage to show the goodness of the marital covenant in the clergy and on the western side "normally" but not always she shows the glory celibacy that Jesus and St. Paul both recommended to the Church for her ministers. A contradiction to the worlds sexuality and happiness. Catholic have the best of both worlds to put it bluntly.

I just need a break. It happens.

I would like to switch the topic to the Charismatic Catholics.

It was a challenge showing you that the French Council banned Bible reading.

You are locked in mentally enough into papal supremacy and papal infallibility that even explicit statements by popes and ecumenical councils won't work. That's a fact because I previously showed you explicit opposition by a modern 19th century Pope to Papal infallibility, and that didn't work.

This can only be evidence of how hard people can get brainlocked into ideologies, especially religious ones.

A pope showing up and saying "Papal infallibility is wrong" are not good enough to prove to you that there is not consensus on this. You need St. Peter to say it.

Since Church Tradition, unlike in the case of the JWs, is at most explicitly divided, and at least rather silent in affirming it until some Roman Popes started affirming it, the Orthodox position is perfectly legitimate in its place in Church Tradition. I stand by the legitimacy of Orthodoxy on this question, the fourth ecumenical council support for equal privileges for Byzantium, and the 19th c. Pope's statement that papal infallibility is false.

You don't. OK. Let's move on to other topics now instead of wasting time.

 

[Athanasias]

In Pentecost, the apostles spoke foreign languages, but in his case, he was not speaking a foreign language, only supposedly understood by his audience. But since he was not the audience or in their heads, he does not know firsthand how this really happened or what really happened.

Nor do I from what you've told me.

That being the case, it's hard for me to consider what I've just been told to be good evidence of speaking in tongues as a real miracle.

Feel free to get more details about possible alternatives from him and get back to me.

Is it hard living life always skeptical of things?? OHH dear Ochham you have started such a mess with our society. I have no real reason to prove to you any of this. But I can only assume that your just as skeptical with the many Orthodox miracles and mystics as well? It does not really matter to me or to them what you think. it happened and now that tribe is Catholic. I have no reason to doubt this missionary priest or the many saints and mystics of the Church who have had many more extraordinary miracles happen to them then just that in the past 2000 years. There have been saints modern and old who have been able to bi-locate, levitate, read minds and sins in confession that were unconfessed, raise the dead, have power over nature, fly, stigmata, heal the sick and blind, etc etc. If you have problems with these them well that is your problem. I don't limit God because of his mysterious actions and workings in the body of Christ. Nor do many exorcist I know. Demons hate it and thats good enough proof for me. Nor does 2000 years of saints and their lived example.

Main fear is wasting my time on tangential chains of inferences in cases where the Ecumenical Councils and numerous fathers do not actually or explicitly affirm vertical papal power.
And someone is trying to mess with my head and brainwash me based on unnecessary inferences that they do.

I am fully aware how hard it was for you to accept that the French Council explicitly temporarily banned Bible reading, although to your credit you accepted it after I made a full logical proof a few times in a row.

And the 4th council was explicit in its canon AND denounced as "pernicious" by a supporter of papal supremacy.

At this point, it is just time wasting and messing with my head, with you saying for hours like a fisherman with bait on a hook telling me that you have the hidden truth about papal supremacy and that I should pray to be open to your hidden (but actually rationally non-existent) "truth".

Well Stop being afraid and dialog on this with me then. You never know what you might see.

A lot of religion can be mental programming.

That is interesting. I assume them you think the Catholic Church must be evil and making this all up to brainwash the world ands lead them to hell as we are a large mind washing cult(in the modern sense) then eh? if so that would expose perhaps your older prejudices from protestantism. It sounds very much like a Calvinist or Baptists or fundamentalistic understanding of Catholicism. Maybe a non denom? They tend to spout those type of beliefs about the Church. Good Ol Jack Chick

Catholic Church has been moving in a more ecumenical direction toward Orthodox, changing hard dogmas. Now Catholic Church allows normal joint marriages with EOs in RC churches. That process of Ecumenical reform will continue.

I am curious to know if you understand what dogmas are in Catholic theology and understanding? A dogma or what you would call a hard dogma is a doctrine that has been infallibly defined. I have no idea what infallibly defined doctrines you think the Catholic Church has ever changed but I am up to hear them. Joint marriages certainly are not dogma or even doctrine but rather practices. Practices can change. Thats true. But doctrines and dogma's never change. The Church by the Holy Spirit can guide her into the deeper understanding of current dogma's(and all Christians hold to that) but the essence of the dogma can never change. I can see you really do not understand how Catholicism works.

In the sense of one Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Not in the sense of everyone accepting Pope as vertical ruler of everybody and papal infallibility ex cathedra.

Well hello.... that is why the dialog is so important. There is alot to talk about. But you fear it and think its a waste yet you really do not know do you?

How could God want people to accept wrong ecclesiology? If a past pope openly and correctly opposed papal infallibility, how could God want everyone to accept that wrong teaching?

This stuff is crazy brainwashing. I need to stop.

Your right on this God would not desire a wrong ecclesiology for his people. Christ died and rose for all truth and so that all can be part of his Body. Now we need to discuss what that all entails ands there alot of good scripture and tradition to talk about in this case. If for no other reason so that many people reading it can at least see the evidence from both sides and weight it out and have a better understanding from both sides.

Brainwashing however. Come on. The Jw's do that. You cannot read anything or consider anything outiside of the JW lituature. I know I used to minister to them. They have a real fear that if they do they will not inherit the earth(they believe only 144000 enter heaven). Now that is brain washing. I know I ministerd to one gentlement and took him through the pamplet they had on the Trinity and showed him how his organisation is misquoting the fathers. I had him read the actual fathers and what they actually said. At one point when I showed him this he slammed down the writings of the fathers on my kitchedn table and yelled "NO... if the Jw's are not right then nobody can be right" and then excused himself and stormed out of my apartment. I never seen him again. They have a fear of reading the other side. Catholics however can read all the evidence from all angels and decide for themselves. We started the modern concept of the univerisities and scientific method even. We are not afraid to engage in history or hearing all the facts. I have several commentaries from protestants and jewus and even Messiancis in my house. I own books by non-Catholic scholars. There is no brainwashing. In fact that is why the Church does ecumenical dialogs with others(the Jw's and other cults stay away from that kind of stuff out of fear). We do so to learn the other side prayerfully and to show why we hold to what we do as well. Its worked great with the Lutherans on both the local and higher levels. Do not be afraid.

I just need a break. It happens.

I would like to switch the topic to the Charismatic Catholics.

It was a challenge showing you that the French Council banned Bible reading.

You are locked in mentally enough into papal supremacy and papal infallibility that even explicit statements by popes and ecumenical councils won't work. That's a fact because I previously showed you explicit opposition by a modern 19th century Pope to Papal infallibility, and that didn't work.

This can only be evidence of how hard people can get brainlocked into ideologies, especially religious ones.

A pope showing up and saying "Papal infallibility is wrong" are not good enough to prove to you that there is not consensus on this. You need St. Peter to say it.

Since Church Tradition, unlike in the case of the JWs, is at most explicitly divided, and at least rather silent in affirming it until some Roman Popes started affirming it, the Orthodox position is perfectly legitimate in its place in Church Tradition. I stand by the legitimacy of Orthodoxy on this question, the fourth ecumenical council support for equal privileges for Byzantium, and the 19th c. Pope's statement that papal infallibility is false.

You don't. OK. Let's move on to other topics now instead of wasting time.

I can understand if you need a break. I am not moving on to other topics I like to stick to the dialog at hand. Fine. I do not have to dialog with you. Your the one writing to me and acting like you want to dialog but then say you don't want to. You have many misunderstandings on what infallibility is or how the Church determines and uses it. I am fine if you think this is a waster of time then go on an we do not have dialog. But if you ever want to know more you can dialog with me one on one or read my dialogs on this if another picks this up. its up to you. I don't really think your getting what ecumenism is but if you decide to dialog we can and perhaps we will both learn something. Or if you decide not to then thats ok with me as well.

Try to have a blessed Lent.

God bless you.

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasais

 

[rakovsky]

Is it hard living life always skeptical of things??

Who knows. It can keep you from getting taken advantage of.

But I can only assume that your just as skeptical with the many Orthodox miracles and mystics as well?

I don't have a strong opinion about them.
There are a few modern stories of people talking to each other when they don't know the language, one being a holy Orthodox person and the other a visitor. Maybe it's the same thing as in the alternative I gave. Maybe it's real. Maybe it's ESP and not divine.

"There have been saints modern and old who have been able to bi-locate, levitate, read minds and sins in confession that were unconfessed, raise the dead, have power over nature, fly, stigmata, heal the sick and blind, etc etc."

I am pretty skeptical about the actions in bold. Not saying it couldn't happen.

Charismaticism is extremely rare among Eastern Catholics, by the way. There is only one Eastern Catholic parish I know in the US that is openly involved in the Charismatic movement.

My guess is that ECs will give the same reasons that Orthodox do about why they don't get involved in it.

A Byzantine Catholic writer, Helle Georgiadis, editor of the ecumenical review, "Chrysostom", reinforces the judgment of the above Russian Orthodox theologian:

"From the standpoint of Eastern spirituality the contemporary Pentecostal movement appears as a positively alien environment for growth in the life of the Spirit. At first sight this may seem paradoxical for a spirituality so closely identified with apophatic theology. Moreover, the East has always taken prophecy and healing and similar manifestations in its stride. But there are two aspects of Pentecostalism which are alien to Eastern tradition. Wordless utterances may manifest themselves in individual cases, even in very holy people, but to seek to cultivate "speaking in tongues" in this sense would seem to deny redeemed man's dignity and destiny as co-heirs with Christ, and the Holy Spirit's mission to enlighten the minds and hearts of men.

The other aspect is the stress laid by Pentecostalists on experience which is 'felt'. Here again, though individuals may sense an almost tangible awareness of the Holy Spirit's presence, the search for experience which is apprehended through the senses has always been seen as a dangerous and unwarranted goal for the Christian to pursue."25​

SOURCE: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6587
​

Regarding the Papal Supremacy issue, there is not much more to say, since we are familiar with eachother's mentality on the topic. I gave you the quote from the 19c. pope against papal infallibility, and mentioned the 4th ecumenical council saying that the two churches have "equal privileges." For your part, I've read your first discussion on the Debate Thread where you talk about Caiaphas, and I'm familiar with the kind of unnecessary inferential logic that supporters of papal supremacy use.

So at this point what I would need is something like an explicit statement by St Peter or another apostle saying eg. "the Roman Catholic position on papal infallibility is wrong, papal infallibility is fake just like the 19th c. pope said" to persuade you, since the 19th c. Pope saying it wasn't good enough. To persuade me that the RC doctrine was Orthodox, you would need to do something like show a consensus of Eastern Church fathers before the schism, since otherwise we are left with a plurality of views at least. So let's please switch topics.

On another note, I think it's cool that you were former southern Baptist who converted to Catholicism. Catholics get demonized a lot and their ideology gets misconstrued often by Reformed. So it's neat that you made this shift.

Peace.

 

[Athanasias]

Who knows. It can keep you from getting taken advantage of.


I don't have a strong opinion about them.
There are a few modern stories of people talking to each other when they don't know the language, one being a holy Orthodox person and the other a visitor. Maybe it's the same thing as in the alternative I gave. Maybe it's real. Maybe it's ESP and not divine.

"There have been saints modern and old who have been able to bi-locate, levitate, read minds and sins in confession that were unconfessed, raise the dead, have power over nature, fly, stigmata, heal the sick and blind, etc etc."

I am pretty skeptical about the actions in bold. Not saying it couldn't happen.

Charismaticism is extremely rare among Eastern Catholics, by the way. There is only one Eastern Catholic parish I know in the US that is openly involved in the Charismatic movement.

My guess is that ECs will give the same reasons that Orthodox do about why they don't get involved in it.

SOURCE: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6587
​

Regarding the Papal Supremacy issue, there is not much more to say, since we are familiar with eachother's mentality on the topic. I gave you the quote from the 19c. pope against papal infallibility, and mentioned the 4th ecumenical council saying that the two churches have "equal privileges." For your part, I've read your first discussion on the Debate Thread where you talk about Caiaphas, and I'm familiar with the kind of unnecessary inferential logic that supporters of papal supremacy use.

So at this point what I would need is something like an explicit statement by St Peter or another apostle saying eg. "the Roman Catholic position on papal infallibility is wrong, papal infallibility is fake just like the 19th c. pope said" to persuade you, since the 19th c. Pope saying it wasn't good enough. To persuade me that the RC doctrine was Orthodox, you would need to do something like show a consensus of Eastern Church fathers before the schism, since otherwise we are left with a plurality of views at least. So let's please switch topics.

On another note, I think it's cool that you were former southern Baptist who converted to Catholicism. Catholics get demonized a lot and their ideology gets misconstrued often by Reformed. So it's neat that you made this shift.

Peace.

Well we have indeed come to a final point. I do appreciate talking to you. I also appreciate your skepticism at least somewhat as I once had some of the same skeptical and anylitical views. I used to play slam the priest in high school and at one time told him much of what the Church teaches was full of sh$%^. So I understand working out the kinks. It took me years of study and prayer and I just came to a point where I no longer am skeptical. But I think a healthy dose of prudence(not skepticism) can be useful because God can use that to get someone to fearlessly open themselves up to study all the issues at best as they can to learn.

I want to correct something though. I was never a southern baptist formally. Though for a time I considered myself a protestant wanted to be one. Sorry If I gave you that idea. I am very familiar with the Southern Baptist crowd though as I used to date and was engaged to a Southern Baptist girl for 5 years. During this time I would go with her to her worship service and her weekly studies and she would go with me to mass. I became friend with her pastor and music minister and had solid dialogs with them. They were traditional baptist and this before the fundies went relevent and started playing rock music and all that Jazz. So I got to see firsthand and here traditional baptist views and learn from them. It was a blessing because It was at this point in my life when I did not believe the Catholic Church I was raised in was true. I questioned everything but tried to remain open to all positions. But some things I was really against. I used to think the Pope and his office was made up and used to control Catholics with power. I remember trying to talk my own mother out of the Catholic Church and what I considered contradictory doctrines. It almost worked but thankfully did not.

I used to go also to Lutheran LCMS services at times(as she had a step Dad who was Lutheran and I was fascinated with Luther and the reformers views) and at one time stopped going to the Eucharist at Mass because I had a real problem with the real presence or transubstantiation and other issues that Catholics taught. It took me a year to study that stuff at lenght and still I had to pray to have grace help me understand. God is good he used miracles, exorcism cases and patristics, and apologetics to get me understanding some of this better. Going to her Church helped give me the opposite view. I used to come home with books from the library on other faiths written by other ministers. I either wanted to be Lutheran or Baptist. But after much prayer(5 years) and study I could not accept some of their doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide. I eventually became convinced the Catholic Church was the true Church but still did not get it all till years later. I also went to the open non-denominational bible studies at this time that seemed to be more baptist and calvinist in flavor then anything else. I made many good non-Catholic friends(some of them ministers) who used to go out to dinner with me and discuss theollogy fromn both sides. It was fun and I learned alot and so did they. I got to learn what they believed and why and in turn we discussed Catholicism which I myself was still learning. My girlfriend Baptist preacher came to my moms funeral mass which was very big. He told me he considered me a memeber of his church since I had been going there for 5 years and participated in vacations bible school and plays. Then he said he knows I am Christian but he just did not get our thing about Mary. LOL His presence moved my heart. So though I came back to the Church fully after 5 years and was convinced it was authentic I still had much to learn and did not fully understand. The Holy Spirit worked with me as I read alot and eventuallu did undergrad and Grad school for Catholic theology which God was beating at my heart to do and opened a door for me. If my mom and grandpa could see me now(well I guess they can). But even then I was not till after I graduated Grad school for example in 2012 that the Holy Spirit helped me understand the doctrine and practice of indulgences. He keep revealing more as the years go on. My Skepticism slipped away after a few years of prayer and study because I found solid answers(at least in my mind they were) to nearly all my objections and I got to meet alot fo converts to the faith several of whom used to be protestant ministers or studying for the ministry at protestant seminaries so they also taught me alot. Well Good luck to you in your walk. God bless you!

At any rate. Have a blessed week.

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasais

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The discussion continues with a Lutheran Twist: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/formal-debate-office-of-the-papacy.7942835/#post-69529815

 

[mark46]

When the Orthodox (other than Moscow) and Roman Catholics met, they prayed, discussed and concluded that Bishop of Roman was Patriarch of the West and first among equal patriarchs. This is as the early Church operated through the last ecumenical council in 787.

They agreed at Rivenna that the Bishop of Rome has the same power and authority that he had in 787, no more and no less. Clearly, the Orthodox believed the RCC had added doctrines (filioque and the ex cathedra declarations) and the RCC thought that the Orthodox did not recognize the pope as Patriarch, and certainly not as protus (first among equals). There have been continuing decades of discussion with regard to exactly what power and authority the Bishop of Rome had in 787.

As an aside, the current pope has met with the Patriarch of Moscow who was not part of the joint declaration.

 

[Athanasias]

When the Orthodox (other than Moscow) and Roman Catholics met, they prayed, discussed and concluded that Bishop of Roman was Patriarch of the West and first among equal patriarchs. This is as the early Church operated through the last ecumenical council in 787.

They agreed at Rivenna that the Bishop of Rome has the same power and authority that he had in 787, no more and no less. Clearly, the Orthodox believed the RCC had added doctrines (filioque and the ex cathedra declarations) and the RCC thought that the Orthodox did not recognize the pope as Patriarch, and certainly not as protus (first among equals). There have been continuing decades of discussion with regard to exactly what power and authority the Bishop of Rome had in 787.

As an aside, the current pope has met with the Patriarch of Moscow who was not part of the joint declaration.

I guess it depends on how you define terms as first among equals. The Roman Pontiffs exercised some pretty universal authority even in council over the East before 787. If you keep reading the Dialog between myself and my friendly brother I think you may see some good historical evidence of this universal authority. I think your confused if your Catholic. What your saying sounds more like protestant Anglicanism or non protestant Orthodoxy. Here is Vatican II , the last ecumenical council on the office of Pope and the rest of the Bishops: It binding on all Catholics.

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head..........his collegial union is apparent also the mutual relations of the individual bishops with particular churches and with the universal Church. The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.(30*) The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, (31*) fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church.(32*) For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity.
(159)(28*)(Lumen Gentium 22-23)

As far as infallibility is concerned with the Pope and Church:

"And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)(Lumen Gentium 25)

 

[Athanasias]

The discussion continues with a Lutheran Twist: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/formal-debate-office-of-the-papacy.7942835/#post-69529815

Awesome! Thanks Mark!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Awesome! Thanks Mark!

Any time!

 

[Athanasias]

Bump!

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I believe the ranking archbishop, which would ordinarily be the Pope of Rome were it not for the Great Schism, is entitled to a primacy of honour, should lead the church in lands of the Barbarians, eg the West or non-Christian areas not expressly assigned to another Patriarch (for example, the Patriarch of Antioch is also Patriarch "of all the East" and the Pope of Alexandria is also the Patriarch of Alexandria). I also believe the ranking archbishop has certain reserved juridicial authorities under Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.

I believe this office, for the Orthodox, is exercised by my patriarch, His All Holiness Bartholomew II of Constantinople, but if he ever falls into heresy, it would transfer to Alexandria, then Antioch, then Jerusalem. If they all fell into heresy (God help us!) it then becomes an open question who takes over; the Patriarch of Moscow has the largest church overall and would probably insist on it, but the Catholicos of Georgia and the Patriarchates of Romania and Bulgaria, and the Metropolitanate of Kiev, which is not canonically autocephalous, are older; also, the Archbishop of Cyprus has always been autocephalous and was historically the only unambiguously autocephalous bishop other than those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, before the fourth century (the Catholicos of the East may have been autocephalous, but was more likely an autonomous dependency of Antioch). So if all ancient Patriarchs separated themselves from the Orthodox Church, leaving just the Patriarchs of Moscow, Romania, and Bulgaria, the Catholicos of Georgia, and the Archbishops of Cyprus and the Czech Lands and Slovakia, I think the Archbishop of Cyprus should become primus inter pares owing to the antiquity of the Church of Cyprus as an autocephalous institution.

Conversely, if the Catholics and Orthodox re-enter communion, all juridicial powers and primacy now exercised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate would transfer to the Pope of Rome, and he would be the court of appeal under Article 28 of Chalcedon.

The canons of the council of Chalcedon basically state what the ancient church, Orientals and Nestorians not included, assigned the Pope in terms of authority. And it is a lot of power.

 

[samir]

Bump!

Quoting scripture and the interpretations of modern day commentaries and scholars is interesting but if the early church taught papal supremacy then why don't you just quote where they clearly taught it? Anyone can interpret scripture to support whatever they want so it would be more convincing if you showed us that the earliest Christians understood the pope's role the same way Rome does today. My initial impression after reading your long post was that you probably quoted modern day sources because you couldn't find any ancient sources that interpreted those verses the way Rome does today which makes me more likely to believe papal supremacy is a later Roman invention.

 

[Athanasias]

Quoting scripture and the interpretations of modern day commentaries and scholars is interesting but if the early church taught papal supremacy then why don't you just quote where they clearly taught it? Anyone can interpret scripture to support whatever they want so it would be more convincing if you showed us that the earliest Christians understood the pope's role the same way Rome does today. My initial impression after reading your long post was that you probably quoted modern day sources because you couldn't find any ancient sources that interpreted those verses the way Rome does today which makes me more likely to believe papal supremacy is a later Roman invention.

Well this is not a debate but rather a dialogue. All Doctrines do develop in Christianity. My job is not to convince but to share. I shared some of the biblical evidence that related to Jewish fulfillment because I thought it was powerful. I used many non-Catholic sources to show that its not just Catholics who see this. Oh Just wait there is alot of good ancient sources even the eastern apostolic fathers who I will cover in the next few days that I and others feel show this Papal authority over the whole Church. So hopefully everyone will see consistancy. MY friend listed a long list of issues so I am addressing them one by one and also adding more biblical and historical and archaeological, evidence. . Keep your eyes peeled. In a few days you will see some of it. Glad your reading it!

 

[Athanasias]

I believe the ranking archbishop, which would ordinarily be the Pope of Rome were it not for the Great Schism, is entitled to a primacy of honour, should lead the church in lands of the Barbarians, eg the West or non-Christian areas not expressly assigned to another Patriarch (for example, the Patriarch of Antioch is also Patriarch "of all the East" and the Pope of Alexandria is also the Patriarch of Alexandria). I also believe the ranking archbishop has certain reserved juridicial authorities under Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.

I believe this office, for the Orthodox, is exercised by my patriarch, His All Holiness Bartholomew II of Constantinople, but if he ever falls into heresy, it would transfer to Alexandria, then Antioch, then Jerusalem. If they all fell into heresy (God help us!) it then becomes an open question who takes over; the Patriarch of Moscow has the largest church overall and would probably insist on it, but the Catholicos of Georgia and the Patriarchates of Romania and Bulgaria, and the Metropolitanate of Kiev, which is not canonically autocephalous, are older; also, the Archbishop of Cyprus has always been autocephalous and was historically the only unambiguously autocephalous bishop other than those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, before the fourth century (the Catholicos of the East may have been autocephalous, but was more likely an autonomous dependency of Antioch). So if all ancient Patriarchs separated themselves from the Orthodox Church, leaving just the Patriarchs of Moscow, Romania, and Bulgaria, the Catholicos of Georgia, and the Archbishops of Cyprus and the Czech Lands and Slovakia, I think the Archbishop of Cyprus should become primus inter pares owing to the antiquity of the Church of Cyprus as an autocephalous institution.

Conversely, if the Catholics and Orthodox re-enter communion, all juridicial powers and primacy now exercised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate would transfer to the Pope of Rome, and he would be the court of appeal under Article 28 of Chalcedon.

The canons of the council of Chalcedon basically state what the ancient church, Orientals and Nestorians not included, assigned the Pope in terms of authority. And it is a lot of power.

We will definitely cover Chalcedon in this dialog from a Catholic pov eventually. In fact it was Chalcedon that I felt showed papal authority or Primary very well. I know other protestants who read that council and felt the same. it will all be covered from our pov in a dialog style. Hang in there and thanks for reading.

 

[samir]

Well this is not a debate but rather a dialogue. My job is not to convince but to share.

Okay but I don't know why you wouldn't want to convince too if you believe what you're saying is the truth. When I share what God has revealed to me, I want people to be convinced so they can grow closer to God.

I shared some of the biblical evidence that related to Jewish fulfillment because I thought it was powerful. I used many non-Catholic sources to show that its not just Catholics who see this. Oh Just wait there is alot of good ancient sources even the eastern apostolic fathers who I will cover in the next few days that I and others feel show this Papal authority over the whole Church. So hopefully everyone will see consistency. MY friend listed a long list of issues so I am addressing them one by one and also adding more biblical and historical and archaeological, evidence. . Keep your eyes peeled. In a few days you will see some of it. Glad your reading it!

I look forward to reading those good ancient sources, especially those from eastern fathers, supporting papal supremacy. I signed up to these forums primarily to learn more about whether papal supremacy is true. After waiting awhile for your discussion to start, I started researching quotes on my own and debating an Orthodox Christian on the Ancient way forum arguing in favor of papal supremacy but he had a very good defense so I'm still undecided and hoping your discussion will convinced me.

 

[samir]

We will definitely cover Chalcedon in this dialog from a Catholic pov eventually. In fact it was Chalcedon that I felt showed papal authority or Primary very well. I know other protestants who read that council and felt the same. it will all be covered from our pov in a dialog style. Hang in there and thanks for reading.

I definitely look forward to this. I read Chalcedon and canon 28 recently and was left with the impression the Eastern part of the Church believed Rome had merely a primacy of honor based on being the capital city while the Roman church that rejected that canon believed it's authority was based on being the successor of Peter. Other historical evidence of Rome claiming authority (Pope Victor, Pope Stephen) and Eastern bishops rejecting it (Sts Irenaeus and Cyprian) led me to wonder whether the East and West was divided from the beginning making it very difficult to determine which church Jesus founded.

 

[Athanasias]

Okay but I don't know why you wouldn't want to convince too if you believe what you're saying is the truth. When I share what God has revealed to me, I want people to be convinced so they can grow closer to God.



I look forward to reading those good ancient sources, especially those from eastern fathers, supporting papal supremacy. I signed up to these forums primarily to learn more about whether papal supremacy is true. After waiting awhile for your discussion to start, I started researching quotes on my own and debating an Orthodox Christian on the Ancient way forum arguing in favor of papal supremacy but he had a very good defense so I'm still undecided and hoping your discussion will convinced me.

Well the only thing I can do is maybe help remove obstacles. A dialog is meant to learn and help everyone hear why the other guy teaches as they do. So hopefully you will have an informed decision to accept or reject the Papacy. The Holy Spirit has to convince you. When I studied in grad school the early church this to me was pretty clear that the Bishop of Rome starting with Peter had a very universal authority over the whole Church. There is alot of evidence of this both biblically and historically and archeologically. I had a few protestant convert professors who helped me see the evidence they did when studying this issue. I hope to be of some help at least. I think when the evidecne is seen as a whole and all the pieces of the puzzle are together the Papacy is clear and makes sense.

 

[Athanasias]

I definitely look forward to this. I read Chalcedon and canon 28 recently and was left with the impression the Eastern part of the Church believed Rome had merely a primacy of honor based on being the capital city while the Roman church that rejected that canon believed it's authority was based on being the successor of Peter. Other historical evidence of Rome claiming authority (Pope Victor, Pope Stephen) and Eastern bishops rejecting it (Sts Irenaeus and Cyprian) led me to wonder whether the East and West was divided from the beginning making it very difficult to determine which church Jesus founded.

Just wait till I cover this. I will also use Eastern historians too to show this. But it will be a while because there is alot. I am almost done answering about 6 objections of my brothers and I added alot of evidnece from scripture and began to start with the aposotlic fathers and evidence from archeology. it will post in a few days. But give it time in a few weeks we will get to Chalcedon and what follows. I think you will be surpised.

 

[Athanasias]

I definitely look forward to this. I read Chalcedon and canon 28 recently and was left with the impression the Eastern part of the Church believed Rome had merely a primacy of honor based on being the capital city while the Roman church that rejected that canon believed it's authority was based on being the successor of Peter. Other historical evidence of Rome claiming authority (Pope Victor, Pope Stephen) and Eastern bishops rejecting it (Sts Irenaeus and Cyprian) led me to wonder whether the East and West was divided from the beginning making it very difficult to determine which church Jesus founded.

My latest post is up. I do not know if it will help you see the Catholic position better or not. I have not gotten to Chalcedon yet but I will. That council alone I think shows papal authority better then any ancient council. At any rate enjoy the dialog.

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasais