The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Dylar]

'Specially since the LGBT community wants to literally force the Church to allow same-sex marriage...at least that's what I've been told by LGBT people at my school...

The Orthodox Church doesn't marry people who aren't Orthodox and in good standing so you'd have to force that first.

As for Catholics, well, you guys depicted the Lord as a comely nude youth and are into visualizing him while whipping yourselves, so maybe same-sex marriage would give you more respectability.

whut...?

[Diopolis]

I agree that non-Christian sins are not really our concern. But the LGBT issue does effect the Church as well.

Not as much as Christians disregarding Christian sexual ethics, although that gets basically zero attention. It's always more savory to tell others what to do than to get your own shit together.

Depends on the particular sect and interpretation, actually. Some groups practically obsess over stopping their members from fornicating, contracepting, etc. Of course these are generally the ones that have the least to worry about with that, but still.

[Maineiacs]

The problem is that there is no way to actually remove a heretical pontiff, as they have (in theory at least) supreme power over the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite easy for a heretical pontiff (again, in theory) to simply remove his political opponents and replace the Church hierarchy with his supporters. In reality, this would probably cause a schism in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is the principle of the matter.

Actually, the deposition of a heretical pope, while not a trifling matter, is generally agreed to be possible(and we're probably closer to it than we have been since avignon). In practice it would cause a schism, of course(like avignon).
The church would have to convict the pope of heresy. How?
-Warnings from high ranking ecclesiastics would be issued.
-If the warnings were unheeded, a council would have to be called.
-While not a perfect ecumenical council, it would have the ability to convict the pope of heresy and depose him. Theological opinions differ as to which act in particular would result in deposition and the exact consequences- presumably, the council would hammer this out.
-An imperfect council of this sort means that it cannot address matters not directly related to the reason it was summoned. In the unlikely event that the current dubia/AL debacle results in this, for example, it would only judge whether the pope has committed the crime of heresy by his statements(at least some of his private statements are probably heresy) and not issue rulings on related issues such as annulment reform. The council of Constance and the council of Sinuesso are two examples of previous imperfect councils. The council would be called by a group of bishops and cardinals, or by Catholic monarchs.
-For obvious reasons, there would have to be another conclave immediately afterwards.
-The pope would at this point be considered excommunicated vitandus, that is, Catholics would be obliged to shun him.
Citation: True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. By John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Chapter eleven.

In response to Tarsonis, I never intended to say that the Chair of Peter does not have primacy, merely that it does not possess the universal powers that have been granted to it in the Roman Catholic Church. Should the Papacy return to Orthodoxy, then we would of course have to honor it as First Among Equals. But it does not, alone, possess protection of the Holy Spirit, and cannot, alone, speak for the entire Church. Synodality must reign supreme, and there were times where the Conciliar movement in the Roman Catholic Church was very strong (during the Avignon schism, for instance); if such a return were to take place, then real discussion could begin; however, it seems undeniable that the powers of the Chair of Peter as understood by the Roman Catholic Church did not evolve outside of the Patriarchate of the West (now dissolved by the Roman Pontiff).

In other words, the pope is just a bishop with a better hat and the church can only be judged by a synod.

*Dio, I'd be careful calling Cardinals heretics.

They did just say a full blown ecumenical council was wrong.

Ancestral sin in Catholicism includes guilt for sin, so it's a little different for them. The guilt part is mainly what their doctrine about Mary's conception is for

Kind of sort of not really but not exactly wrong.

Francis' removal, were it to happen, would almost certainly be a political move, not a theological one.

[Diopolis]

The Orthodox Church doesn't marry people who aren't Orthodox and in good standing so you'd have to force that first.

As for Catholics, well, you guys depicted the Lord as a comely nude youth and are into visualizing him while whipping yourselves, so maybe same-sex marriage would give you more respectability.

whut...?

Ignore the anti-catholic bigotry. It's just an expression of Orthodox feelings of inadequacy.
Although I'm not sure how they missed the even more obvious joke of if the priests are marrying the altar boys now, who's going to witness it?

[Diopolis]

Actually, the deposition of a heretical pope, while not a trifling matter, is generally agreed to be possible(and we're probably closer to it than we have been since avignon). In practice it would cause a schism, of course(like avignon).
The church would have to convict the pope of heresy. How?
-Warnings from high ranking ecclesiastics would be issued.
-If the warnings were unheeded, a council would have to be called.
-While not a perfect ecumenical council, it would have the ability to convict the pope of heresy and depose him. Theological opinions differ as to which act in particular would result in deposition and the exact consequences- presumably, the council would hammer this out.
-An imperfect council of this sort means that it cannot address matters not directly related to the reason it was summoned. In the unlikely event that the current dubia/AL debacle results in this, for example, it would only judge whether the pope has committed the crime of heresy by his statements(at least some of his private statements are probably heresy) and not issue rulings on related issues such as annulment reform. The council of Constance and the council of Sinuesso are two examples of previous imperfect councils. The council would be called by a group of bishops and cardinals, or by Catholic monarchs.
-For obvious reasons, there would have to be another conclave immediately afterwards.
-The pope would at this point be considered excommunicated vitandus, that is, Catholics would be obliged to shun him.
Citation: True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. By John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Chapter eleven.

In other words, the pope is just a bishop with a better hat and the church can only be judged by a synod.

They did just say a full blown ecumenical council was wrong.

Kind of sort of not really but not exactly wrong.

Francis' removal, were it to happen, would almost certainly be a political move, not a theological one.

It's impossible to fully separate the two in this (staggeringly unlikely)case.

[The Parkus Empire]

whut...?

Ignore the anti-catholic bigotry. It's just an expression of Orthodox feelings of inadequacy.
Although I'm not sure how they missed the even more obvious joke of if the priests are marrying the altar boys now, who's going to witness it?

That's been done to death and I think Catholic rape jokes are kind of a low blow.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, that's pretty much true.

In fact, evidence from the DNC's leaks suggests that Hillary Clinton or some other higher ups in the Democrat party was trying to come up with some sort of plan to insert liberals into the Church to influence it into their political direction. Not that it would have worked anyway, I don't think she really knows how the RCC works.

Perhaps her plan was somewhat similar to Hitler's which was take all the legitimate Catholic priests in the Reich and their conquered territories, execute them, and replace them with "puppet" priests that believe that Hitler did nothing wrong. Only difference being that she probably wouldn't kill them...

No, I think it was a influence over time kind of thing. Not quite 'invasion of the body snatchers'.

[United Muscovite Nations]

'Specially since the LGBT community wants to literally force the Church to allow same-sex marriage...at least that's what I've been told by LGBT people at my school...

Yeah, that's pretty much true.

In fact, evidence from the DNC's leaks suggests that Hillary Clinton or some other higher ups in the Democrat party was trying to come up with some sort of plan to insert liberals into the Church to influence it into their political direction. Not that it would have worked anyway, I don't think she really knows how the RCC works.

Writing to Podesta, Sandy Newman of Voices for Progress - a non-Catholic - writes: “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.”
Newman adds: “I have not thought at all about how one would ‘plant the seeds of the revolution,’ or who would plant them.”
Podesta agreed that this was necessary, and noted he helped begin two groups to do as Newman suggests. Podesta wrote: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2 ... ic-church/

Basically, a high ranking official in the Clinton campaign admitted in an email that "we" created an organization for the purpose of starting a "Catholic Spring" and to "plant the seeds of revolution" in the Catholic Church.

[Salus Maior]

Yeah, that's pretty much true.

In fact, evidence from the DNC's leaks suggests that Hillary Clinton or some other higher ups in the Democrat party was trying to come up with some sort of plan to insert liberals into the Church to influence it into their political direction. Not that it would have worked anyway, I don't think she really knows how the RCC works.

Writing to Podesta, Sandy Newman of Voices for Progress - a non-Catholic - writes: “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.”
Newman adds: “I have not thought at all about how one would ‘plant the seeds of the revolution,’ or who would plant them.”
Podesta agreed that this was necessary, and noted he helped begin two groups to do as Newman suggests. Podesta wrote: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2 ... ic-church/

Basically, a high ranking official in the Clinton campaign admitted in an email that "we" created an organization for the purpose of starting a "Catholic Spring" and to "plant the seeds of revolution" in the Catholic Church.

And this is exactly the reason for my complete lack of faith in secularism. Because secular government doesn't actually respect the whole 'separation of Church and State' thing, what they want is state domination of the Church.

This is evident in a lot of European countries as well.

[Constantinopolis]

I've never seen an Orthodox vs. Catholic debate before.

This could be interesting. The two oldest churches hitting each other with their canes.

There was a time when Orthodox vs. Catholic arguments dominated the CDT to such an extent that at least one Protestant decided to leave... in protest...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The 2nd and 4th councils establish ecumenical primacy and power of Rome. The East interpret that differently than we do.

no, it wouldn't it would just make us like you.



Oh but it does in the end doesn't it? Because you demand that we Capitulate to you.




Yet we don't speak falseheads nor can you prove them to be such. Your entire argument fails in any theological dispelation, you can't prove it to actually be heresy through any theological argument, so instead to resort to one claim: "that's not the way we do things".

This is precisely why I accept the Trueness of the Roman Catholic Church over the Eastern Church. Our claims are better than just, "because we say so." We don't just rest on authority, we use that authority to articulate True Justificstion for such True Doctrine. We are orthodox.

The issue is that we have fundamentally different conceptions of doctrine: you see it as dynamic, we see it as static. Which means our idea of heresy is going to be broader than yours.

That's not accurate. We do believe Doctrine is dynamic. When Doctrine is formalized it is not "new" per se. It was always true, the Church just hadn't recognized it yet.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I've never seen an Orthodox vs. Catholic debate before.

This could be interesting. The two oldest churches hitting each other with their canes.

There was a time when Orthodox vs. Catholic arguments dominated the CDT to such an extent that at least one Protestant decided to leave... in protest...

And my response was "Bye Felicia"

[Constantinopolis]

Well, then they'd be in conflict with what Christ said to Peter when He changed his name from Simon.

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Matthew 16:18

Yes, Christ built the Church, but through Peter and through the other Apostles.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, it's more that they don't believe in a "One True Denomination", but rather that the "True Church" is a spiritual one encompassing them all (excluding ones they believe to be in contradiction to Scripture, such as the majority of 'Restorationist' sects)

That kind of belief is shared by most Protestants, and it is one of the many sharp differences between Protestantism on the one hand and Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the other hand.

Speaking from the Orthodox perspective, we hold it as axiomatic that there is definitely one single True Church, in the sense of a specific denomination with a specific set of doctrines and practices. We also believe that the Orthodox Church is the True Church, of course, but the existence of One True Church is actually a more important thing than the question of which one is that Church. We would be more likely to accept the belief that some other organization is the True Church and that we've been outside the True Church all along, rather than to accept the belief that there is no such thing as a single True Church.

Our concept of Christianity is that Christians are the New Israel, the new People of God - and like the old People of God, like the Old Israel, there is a definite membership of this group and there are definite things that you need to do in order to join; you can't just declare yourself a member because you hold the same (or similar) religious views. Just like agreeing with Moses and following the commandments isn't enough to make someone a Jew, agreeing with Jesus and believing in Him isn't enough to make someone a Christian. There is a physical community, with formal entry requirements, and rituals that you need to perform in order to join.

We see the Church as divided, they see the Church as unified and limited to themselves.

So, if I'm understanding right, the Orthodox do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be "a" Church, or at least the true Church?

That is correct. We do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the true Church.

As for it being "a" Church - there is some internal difference of opinion among the Orthodox as to whether the term "Church" can be legitimately used for entities outside the true Church. Some traditionalists hold that the term "Church" should only be used for the Orthodox Church and her component parts. The rest of us tend to think this is incredibly pedantic and pointless to argue about.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, it's more that they don't believe in a "One True Denomination", but rather that the "True Church" is a spiritual one encompassing them all (excluding ones they believe to be in contradiction to Scripture, such as the majority of 'Restorationist' sects)

That kind of belief is shared by most Protestants, and it is one of the many sharp differences between Protestantism on the one hand and Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the other hand.

Speaking from the Orthodox perspective, we hold it as axiomatic that there is definitely one single True Church, in the sense of a specific denomination with a specific set of doctrines and practices. We also believe that the Orthodox Church is the True Church, of course, but the existence of One True Church is actually a more important thing than the question of which one is that Church. We would be more likely to accept the belief that some other organization is the True Church and that we've been outside the True Church all along, rather than to accept the belief that there is no such thing as a single True Church.

Our concept of Christianity is that Christians are the New Israel, the new People of God - and like the old People of God, like the Old Israel, there is a definite membership of this group and there are definite things that you need to do in order to join; you can't just declare yourself a member because you hold the same (or similar) religious views. Just like agreeing with Moses and following the commandments isn't enough to make someone a Jew, agreeing with Jesus and believing in Him isn't enough to make someone a Christian. There is a physical community, with formal entry requirements, and rituals that you need to perform in order to join.

So, if I'm understanding right, the Orthodox do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be "a" Church, or at least the true Church?

That is correct. We do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the true Church.

As for it being "a" Church - there is some internal difference of opinion among the Orthodox as to whether the term "Church" can be legitimately used for entities outside the true Church. Some traditionalists hold that the term "Church" should only be used for the Orthodox Church and her component parts. The rest of us tend to think this is incredibly pedantic and pointless to argue about.

From a linguistic aspect, church being derived from ecclesia, would be an accurate term.

[Constantinopolis]

May I ask a question of Catholics here?

Do you consider Protestants Christian? I have always considered the Catholics to be brethren though I have been a Protestant all my life, but I had to argue with a Catholic the other day because they refused to acknowledge Protestants as a denomination of Christianity. They said it wasn't founded by Christ, therefore was not part of Christianity, and only Catholicism was Christianity. Every time the subject comes up, they make a statement which seems rather ignorant, honestly, that being 'Christ is in Christianity, not Protestantism' - which makes no sense considering 1. Protestants generally use the term Christianity for themselves in the same manner Catholics do, and 2. it's nitpicking wordplay. Another reason they refuse to accept Protestants is because we do not "accept Mary". Surely this is not the opinion held by all Catholics...right?

I know you didn't direct this question at the Orthodox, but I want to answer it anyway: Of course we consider most Protestants to be Christians (I have to say "most" because the term "Protestant" can be a little vague, so it may include a few people who don't really qualify as Christians).

And of course Catholics are Christians too.

However, neither Protestants nor Catholics are part of the Church. It is possible to be a Christian while being outside of the Church. We call this situation "being in schism".

To use my earlier analogy between the New Israel and the Old Israel: A Christian in schism is like a Jew who refuses to keep some of the commandments of the Law of Moses. Such a person is still a Jew. Likewise, a schismatic Christian is still a Christian. But it would be better if (s)he were to enter into communion with the Church.

[Stonok]

That is correct. We do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the true Church.

• Orthodox Church denies both Catholics and Protestants the title of True Church
• Catholic Church denies Protestants the title
• Some exceptionally radical Protestants deny Catholics the title

It's like poetry.

[Stonok]

I know you didn't direct this question at the Orthodox, but I want to answer it anyway: Of course we consider most Protestants to be Christians (I have to say "most" because the term "Protestant" can be a little vague, so it may include a few people who don't really qualify as Christians).

And of course Catholics are Christians too.

However, neither Protestants nor Catholics are part of the Church. It is possible to be a Christian while being outside of the Church. We call this situation "being in schism".

I actually wanted to ask the Orthodox as well but didn't want to clutter the thread with the same question directed at different people. So thanks.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

'Specially since the LGBT community wants to literally force the Church to allow same-sex marriage...at least that's what I've been told by LGBT people at my school...

The Orthodox Church doesn't marry people who aren't Orthodox and in good standing so you'd have to force that first.

As for Catholics, well, you guys depicted the Lord as a comely nude youth and are into visualizing him while whipping yourselves, so maybe same-sex marriage would give you more respectability.

He's God incarnate. Are you saying he wasn't attractive?

[Constantinopolis]

Ok, now I am going to jump into the burgeoning Orthodox-Catholic debate a little, despite the fact that I have very limited time on my hands and I may not be able to participate beyond this one post. I will only address some of the points that were raised - the ones that really drew my attention.

So, if I'm understanding right, the Orthodox do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be "a" Church, or at least the true Church?

If so that seems so ironic.

Not exactly. The Orthodox view of what constitutes the true Church, is less physically grounded than you would think. The True Church is the body that professes True Doctrine. Different Churches can fall in and out of that Church, but the Church itself never has a break in unity. This is why even though the entirety of what now constitutes the EO church, fell into the heresy during the Iconclast incident, with only Rome remaining Orthodox, the EO does not see this as a break in orthodoxy or unity for them, because their allegiance is not to a temporal church but to the Orthodox and Catholic Church. The Church is alway unified, you're either in that unity or not. They claim Rome for themselves in that period based on this unity,, though they don't now because Rome has fallen out of that unity in their mind.

You are correct about our view of what constitutes the True Church. However, you are incorrect about the historical facts in the example you use.

Only the Patriarchate of Constantinople fell into heresy during the time of iconoclasm. The Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (as well as Rome) did not accept iconoclasm and did not fall into heresy. And since iconoclasm started less than 100 years after the Muslim Conquests, a large majority of the population of the Middle East was still Christian at this time (granted, not all of them Orthodox, but the Orthodox were a majority in Syria and Palestine at least, and a significant minority among Egyptian Christians). Therefore, you can't treat the Middle Eastern Patriarchates as irrelevant footnotes at this time in history. They were still a major part of Christendom. They may have even outnumbered the Patriarchate of Constantinople in membership.

So we would say that the Orthodox Church, at the time of iconoclasm, was composed of the patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. And it's not clear which one of them was the largest by membership. The Middle East was under Muslim rule, but at the same time most of Western Europe was still ruled by either pagans or Arians (or Muslims, in the case of Spain). Really, the 8th century was the absolute darkest time for Christendom, bar none. Heretics on the imperial throne, unstoppable Muslim armies sweeping across the known world, Jerusalem has fallen, the entire Christian heartland is lost, Arian kings still rule in the West, pagan raids are coming... It's a miracle the Church survived at all.

Now, going off on a different tangent, you really need to stop making the mistake of assuming that Constantinople = the whole of the Orthodox Church. And I mean the plural "you". I've seen Catholics make this mistake over and over again when it comes to Church history: Assuming that something happened across the whole Orthodox Church when in fact it only happened within the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

There were times in history when the Patriarchate of Constantinople probably formed the majority of the Orthodox Church by itself, but if you add those times together you can only get 400-500 years at most (and those are cobbled together from at least three distinct historical periods). Ironically, the time when the Patriarchate of Constantinople got to its largest size (relative to Orthodoxy as a whole) was during Ottoman rule. Because by then the Middle Eastern patriarchates had dwindled, and the Ottomans forcibly abolished the Bulgarian and Serbian patriarchates that had been established in the Byzantine period.

1) The Third Ecumenical Council explicitly condemned further alteration of the Nicene Creed.

Inserted by me to address it. This statement is not overtly true, as the prohibition in Canon 7 of the Third Ecumenical council reads thusly: "These things having been read aloud, the holy Council then decreed that no one should be permitted to offer any different belief or faith, or in any case to write or compose any other, than the one defined by the Holy Fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea, with Holy Spirit. As for those who dare either to compose a different belief or faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatever, they, if Bishops or Clergymen, shall be deprived as Bishops of their Episcopate, and as Clergymen of their Clericate; but if they are Laymen, they shall be anathematized."

The canon does not overtly claim the wording of the Creed to be absolute, but rather forbids the canonizing of any different "beliefs or faiths." In the Case of the Filioque, the Catholic Church emphasizes that the filioque doesn't offer a different belief or faith, but rather solidifies the beliefs already held by the Church when the creed was formalized, but was not expressly stated in the original creed." As such the filioquie is not an addition of a "different belief or faith" but rather a clarification of an extant belief.

That's a silly interpretation. Canon 7 clearly refers to a previously-composed text and says that no different creed should be written. If you interpret that to mean "it's okay to change the words of the creed or to add new ones as long as they're in line with Church doctrine", then the canon is meaningless, because the entire creed could potentially be reworded from start to finish. After all, there are multiple ways to say the same thing, right? So we can change the words of the creed completely, as long as the meaning is preserved, right? And there are MANY doctrines - uncontroversial doctrines, even, believed by everyone - that are NOT in the creed. We can add them, right? Even if it meant, say, doubling the size of the creed?

No, no, no. That's ridiculous. What is this, WikiCreed? We can add anything as long as it has a citation?

The Orthodox would object to adding some random new thing to the creed even if we fully agreed that the thing in question is a true statement. After all, if any true statement about theology can be added to the creed, where does it end? Do we add the whole catechism?

3) If the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church, its doctrines, and its canonical structure weren't truly ancient, and, indeed, more ancient than those of the Roman Catholic Church, then the Oriental Communion and Eastern Orthodox Church would not look so similar; meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't particularly resemble the other ancient Churches at all in terms of structure, proving that this change in structure and canon law regarding the Pope's position are all later innovations.

This is a horrendously contrived argument. The Fact that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches resemble each other has more to do with geography than anything else. The Oriental Church/Church of the East were both founded and influenced by the Eastern Churches, rather than the Roman Church, due to simple geographical distance. This doesn't prove the ancientness of the Orthodox Rites so much as it confirms the already widely known relationship between the Eastern Churches and the Churches in the East. It's a rather, shoddy attempt to side-step the abounding evidence from the early Church fathers about the primacy of Rome and the Roman Pontiff, it completely ignores historical instances where such power was more or less flexed.

You misunderstand UMN's point. His point is that there are several ancient Christian groups, who split in the 5th century, who have considered each other heretical for the majority of the past 1500 years, and who - despite this separation - agree with each other that the Roman Pope isn't supposed to be any kind of special leader with special powers.

What does this prove? It proves that the Christian East never cared much for Roman claims to supremacy. It proves that papal supremacy was a regional invention, a belief mostly held by Christians in a particular region - the Western Roman Empire - and by a few scattered individuals elsewhere, but definitely not by the universal Church.

Different factions of Eastern Christians argued bitterly over all manner of doctrinal points in Late Antiquity, and if you read their arguments, you will notice that none of the factions cares much about the position of the Roman Pontiff. Those who agreed with him didn't try to use him as a trump card, and those who opposed him didn't bother to justify their opposition to him. When the Assyrian Church of the East or the Coptic Church went into schism, no one told them they were wrong to place themselves out of communion with Rome. Their opponents used many other arguments, but never this one. Why? Because no one in the East saw communion with Rome as something essential. They argued over which side had the correct doctrine. They didn't argue about communion with Rome or lack thereof.

"
In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church."

The Findings of the Ravenna Document, are as I said earlier. The ecclesialPrimacy of Rome and the Roman Pontiff is orthodox and catholic. How the East and Western Churches understand said Primacy is where the contention lies. The finding presented in the document is that that the Formalized doctrines of Vatican I and II did not include the Churches of the Eastern orthodox Church in their formalization, and thus in the event of reconciliation, there is room for them to be revisited and "Tweeked" a bit for approval by an ecumenical council of all churches.

The Document however does not claim that the Roman Traditions are False and the Orthodox are Correct, or that the Roman Traditions are not ancient, and the Orthodox ones are.

Frankly, the line about how "a series of prerogatives was recognised" is utter nonsense. No, there was absolutely no specific list of prerogatives that was universally recognized, there was absolutely never any clarity on what the "primacy of Rome" was supposed to mean in practice (or if it meant anything beyond courtesy and protocol), and there were large parts of the ancient Christian Church who clearly didn't believe in even the most minimal primacy for Rome. I am talking about the Syriacs, the Copts, and the Ethiopians.

When the Coptic Church went into schism in 451 A.D., they accused the rest of the Christian Church (including Rome) of having fallen into the Nestorian heresy. That was their justification for their schism. Yet neither Dioscorus, nor Severus, nor any of the other intense anti-Chalcedonians, ever bothered to write something explaining what it meant for Christianity that the Bishop of Rome had fallen to heresy. Why? Because no one around them believed the Bishop of Rome to be anything special, so there was no reason to write arguments about him.

Sure, you can dismiss the opinion of these ancient Christian factions as irrelevant because they went into schism and they were wrong to do so. But the point is that they never even bothered to discuss, among themselves, the fact that they were going against the Roman Pontiff when they went into schism. The fact that the Pope was against them was treated like a complete non-issue. So it's pretty clear that they didn't value the opinion of the Pope, and therefore didn't believe in any kind of primacy for him, even before going into schism.

Basically, the further East you go in the ancient Christian world, the less the Roman Pontiff matters. And if you go as far as the St. Thomas Christians in India, it's doubtful they were even aware that a Bishop of Rome existed (until the Portuguese arrived in the 16th century). So to claim that some form of papal primacy was always recognized by the universal Church, even in a very limited sense, is ridiculous.

There have always been some Christians who recognized no role for the Pope at all, and - at least until the 5th century - many such Christians were part of the same Church as the Pope. Various schisms separated them from the Pope in the 5th century, but those schisms were about entirely different issues (namely, the natures of Christ), not about the status of the Pope.

In other words, the pope is just a bishop with a better hat and the church can only be judged by a synod.

Yes. You got it!

[The Parkus Empire]

The Orthodox Church doesn't marry people who aren't Orthodox and in good standing so you'd have to force that first.

As for Catholics, well, you guys depicted the Lord as a comely nude youth and are into visualizing him while whipping yourselves, so maybe same-sex marriage would give you more respectability.

He's God incarnate. Are you saying he wasn't attractive?

Isaiah 53:2

[Hakons]

That moment when I'm the only one in the room that doesn't support LGBT:

Me: *Inhales* Boi

I notice Christians tend to be a lot more concerned over non-Christian gays than the abundance of Christian fornicators.

The Church is the loudest, and one of the last, voices discouraging adultery. There is an abundance of adultery because modern people don't care what the Church says when she wants to limit their hedonism. It is not because Christians don't try, it's because Christian morality is of little importance to many people. LGBT issues are brought up a lot because Church morality is largely against modern ethics on this issue. In most cases, it is the non-Christian that starts the discussion, because they want to paint Christianity as the "bad guy."

As is a consistent trend with your posts, you seem far more comfortable with denouncing Christianity than defending it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

He's God incarnate. Are you saying he wasn't attractive?

Isaiah 53:2

Sigh... it was a joke...


Gonna have to reject the inerrancy of that passage then. Don't know about you but I could stare into these eyes all day:

[The Parkus Empire]

The problem is that there is no way to actually remove a heretical pontiff, as they have (in theory at least) supreme power over the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite easy for a heretical pontiff (again, in theory) to simply remove his political opponents and replace the Church hierarchy with his supporters. In reality, this would probably cause a schism in the Roman Catholic Church, but it is the principle of the matter.

Actually, the deposition of a heretical pope, while not a trifling matter, is generally agreed to be possible(and we're probably closer to it than we have been since avignon). In practice it would cause a schism, of course(like avignon).
The church would have to convict the pope of heresy. How?
-Warnings from high ranking ecclesiastics would be issued.
-If the warnings were unheeded, a council would have to be called.
-While not a perfect ecumenical council, it would have the ability to convict the pope of heresy and depose him. Theological opinions differ as to which act in particular would result in deposition and the exact consequences- presumably, the council would hammer this out.
-An imperfect council of this sort means that it cannot address matters not directly related to the reason it was summoned. In the unlikely event that the current dubia/AL debacle results in this, for example, it would only judge whether the pope has committed the crime of heresy by his statements(at least some of his private statements are probably heresy) and not issue rulings on related issues such as annulment reform. The council of Constance and the council of Sinuesso are two examples of previous imperfect councils. The council would be called by a group of bishops and cardinals, or by Catholic monarchs.
-For obvious reasons, there would have to be another conclave immediately afterwards.
-The pope would at this point be considered excommunicated vitandus, that is, Catholics would be obliged to shun him.
Citation: True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. By John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Chapter eleven.

In response to Tarsonis, I never intended to say that the Chair of Peter does not have primacy, merely that it does not possess the universal powers that have been granted to it in the Roman Catholic Church. Should the Papacy return to Orthodoxy, then we would of course have to honor it as First Among Equals. But it does not, alone, possess protection of the Holy Spirit, and cannot, alone, speak for the entire Church. Synodality must reign supreme, and there were times where the Conciliar movement in the Roman Catholic Church was very strong (during the Avignon schism, for instance); if such a return were to take place, then real discussion could begin; however, it seems undeniable that the powers of the Chair of Peter as understood by the Roman Catholic Church did not evolve outside of the Patriarchate of the West (now dissolved by the Roman Pontiff).

In other words, the pope is just a bishop with a better hat and the church can only be judged by a synod.

*Dio, I'd be careful calling Cardinals heretics.

They did just say a full blown ecumenical council was wrong.

Ancestral sin in Catholicism includes guilt for sin, so it's a little different for them. The guilt part is mainly what their doctrine about Mary's conception is for

Kind of sort of not really but not exactly wrong.

According to your Catechism the Pope has unlimited unilateral authority over the entire Church and is accountable to no one, so I don't see how you could depose hun.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Actually, the deposition of a heretical pope, while not a trifling matter, is generally agreed to be possible(and we're probably closer to it than we have been since avignon). In practice it would cause a schism, of course(like avignon).
The church would have to convict the pope of heresy. How?
-Warnings from high ranking ecclesiastics would be issued.
-If the warnings were unheeded, a council would have to be called.
-While not a perfect ecumenical council, it would have the ability to convict the pope of heresy and depose him. Theological opinions differ as to which act in particular would result in deposition and the exact consequences- presumably, the council would hammer this out.
-An imperfect council of this sort means that it cannot address matters not directly related to the reason it was summoned. In the unlikely event that the current dubia/AL debacle results in this, for example, it would only judge whether the pope has committed the crime of heresy by his statements(at least some of his private statements are probably heresy) and not issue rulings on related issues such as annulment reform. The council of Constance and the council of Sinuesso are two examples of previous imperfect councils. The council would be called by a group of bishops and cardinals, or by Catholic monarchs.
-For obvious reasons, there would have to be another conclave immediately afterwards.
-The pope would at this point be considered excommunicated vitandus, that is, Catholics would be obliged to shun him.
Citation: True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. By John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Chapter eleven.

In other words, the pope is just a bishop with a better hat and the church can only be judged by a synod.

They did just say a full blown ecumenical council was wrong.

Kind of sort of not really but not exactly wrong.

According to your Catechism the Pope has unlimited unilateral authority over the entire Church and is accountable to no one, so I don't see how you could depose hun.

same way we impeach the President

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This is what I meant to say. To say that the Theotokos did not inherit ancestral sin denies the purity of her actions. It makes her sinlessness less glorious.

Ancestral sin in Catholicism includes guilt for sin, so it's a little different for them. The guilt part is mainly what their doctrine about Mary's conception is for

No it doesn't.