except that the validity of all arguments from an RCC or Orthodox perspective hinge on the belief in their infallible truth and/or "right belief" You don't have to invoke it to mean it.
Orthodox belief is not based in arguments and definitions, but is based in worship and agreement over time. Ortho right doxa worship.
you are right. I spoke rudely, and for that I apologize. My frustration with the issue is immense.
Very well, I understand frustation, it certainly is not my intent to add to it. Let' focus on the issues, I think you will find that, whether you agree with us or not, we have something to add to the conversation. I also believe that Protestants have something worthwhile to add to the conversation, when speaking in the positive about what they hold dear, as opposed to negative, as in what is wrong with so and so.
again, I forward that the arguments hinge on the notion that you "got it right" with no possiblity of error.
I am a flawed human who, een in the presence of truth, only understand a small portion, and live up to less. The difference beween you and I is that, while we both hold the bible to be true and trustworthy, you are suspect of corporate readings of same, whereas I trust coporate more than my own- even while I believe myself to be, in all candor, smater and more spiritual than most people I meet. Smart enough to know my limitations.
on the contrary, I know that I will NEVER have it all right. I never have, don't now, and never will. And I'm comfortable with that. I will continue to study and seek, and know that perfection is not within my grasp.
No mine. Yet I believe that the fallible apostles in the Church wote infallible words, and that fallible men recognized and protected and identified the infallible words. Likewise, I believe that fallible bishops and clergy lead the Church into all perfection (maturity)
agreed, Again, I apologize. I can do nothing more. I spoke in anger.
It is forgotten. Thank you for saying so.
I need only point to one example to show that RCC and EO cannot get the shared history straight. They claim Peter as first pope of Rome, and that Roman Catholicism is the original, true church. Orthodox, on the other hand, claim differently. One history truly exists, and neither side is the same.... hence, they cannot get their shared history straight.
Peter is the first pope of Rome- we agree with this. He is the Rock of which Chist spoke. We simply disagree on the interpretation of history, not the narrative of same. So Peter is the Rock, and the first. This does not mean he is the monarch.
I think you and I are both aware that history is interpretive, it is not just a collection of dates and 'facts.' Given the conflicts which took place between Rome and the East (the sacking of Constantinople, the failure of Rome to act when the Turks came to Constantinople unless we submitted to the Pope, which we would not, the imposition of papal authority in the Uniate churches and countries, etc, etc), it is quite remarkable how much the East and Rome agree on both facts and interpretations.