the catholic church has a magic hat, probably contradicted itself

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 69
#31
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@DeusVult
As Papal Supremacy was never at any point in history accepted by the church, and there are numerous examples before the schism of Rome being rebuked for trying to exercise authority outside its ecclesiastical jurisdiction...

...No, rejection of Rome's assertion of Papal Supremacy is not a heresy. 

Rome would say that, but out of the 5 patriarchs, they were the ones that were booted. 4 against 1.

#32
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
you're just preaching catholic teaching. you're not arguing that there's no contradiction here. the text is clear. history is clear. only the catholic church is trying to argue the blue sky is really green. 

also, on the point of the church's validity, there were ecumenical councils that didn't even have roman delegates, and the pope wasn't the head of the councils as catholics would have you believe. 

if you want to read a ton more on the weakness of the catholic faith from a historical perspective, i recommend this link...

#33
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac
Papal supremacy is shown in the early church.  The Corinthians appeal d to Rome for an answer when the had the last living apostle geographically much closer.

Jesus appoints Peter the Rock.  He commands Peter singularly at the last supper to strengthen his brothers.

Your last argument is an ad populism fallacy.  The majority do not dictate truth.

The Orthodox on the other hand have tied the faith to a secular authority.  Hence the reason you cannot form a new council - there is no emperor.

#34
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@DeusVult
The letter of Pope Clement to the church in Corinth is not proof that The Pope of Rome is head over the entire church, and neither is the church in Corinth writing to them an evidence of this. 

Orthodox Catholicism does not tie the faith to a secular authority, but Rome certainly does, as not only did the Pope use fabricated documents to form the papal states, but is still technically the head of state.




#35
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
you're just preaching catholic teaching. you're not arguing that there's no contradiction here. the text is clear. history is clear. only the catholic church is trying to argue the blue sky is really green. 

You mean to say that Catholic teaching explicitly says that there are circumstances that you can attain salvation and not be a member of the Church? It is good that we are then in agreement.  You always have to look at the context of what is being said in any one document.

If you have specific arguments to be made that is fine.  Just giving a gripe list of disembodied quotes isn't a convincing argument.
#36
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac
Proof?  No.  Evidence?  Yes.

Why would Corinth write to Rome to settle a dispute when St. John himself was not only alive, but physically closer?  Maybe because authority resided with Peter's successor?  You know the keys of the kingdom and all that.

The orthodox do not tie their faith to the emperor?  I must be in error, and so must the ancient Orthodox:


Are you referring to the Donation of Constantine?  Sure it is possible that some Popes believed it to be true.  Error in, or even abuse of (if your conspiratorial in this matter) temporal and non-theological matters is irrelevant as to the authority of the Pope in theological matters.
#37
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@DeusVult
Orthodoxy doesn't tie its faith to the emperor any more than Rome did. In fact, there were times post Christianization of the Emperor when the Emperor persecuted the church. This reference is hardly ancient, and this Patriarch isn't even canonized as a Saint. Unlike in Rome, the entire Church cannot be corrupted through the concentration of Authority into one human being.

Rome did crown a "Roman Emperor" in the west, and it was this Holy Roman Emperor that eventually pressured The Roman Bishop into corrupting the creed and thus subject to anathema.

Besides that, flying in the face of all precedent in Church history, The Bishop of Rome actually believed that he could depose and select bishops and Patriarchs by his own whim. 

What else? Calling crusades, sacking the churches in the east, stealing relics, killing Orthodox Christians, torturing heretics, the list goes on.

In fact, it is probably the fault of Roman Catholicism that the west has become secularized, because it's scholastic theologians thought they were more clever and advanced than The Church fathers. 


No, Papal supremacy certainly is a heresy, and if nothing else should act as proof of this sin it should be the reformation and the shameful state of the Roman church even today. Overrun by sodomy, apostasy, and all manners of evil.

No, The Roman church is cursed, and will be until they return to orthodoxy.


But come now, use good sense. Was the New Testament written in Latin or Greek? It was written in Greek. Our scriptures are in Greek. 

Which church has gone through the most persecution? The wicked one has done everything they can to stomp out Orthodoxy, but we are still alive today and strong. The Papal church is infamous for persecuting the world, and I am sure that if they had the political pull to do so even today, they would be torturing those who do not submit to the bishop of Rome, just as they did even to many of our saints and martyrs. Even some of their own saints!

The Orthodox church maintains that it is Jesus Christ who is king over all Christendom, not The Pope of Rome, and it doesn't matter how may feet the Pope washes, and how humble he makes himself, as long as he claims supremacy over the whole church he has adopted the position of anti-Christ.

I cannot accept Papal Supremacy, and neither does the church. It never has.

#38
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
they would be torturing those who do not submit to the bishop of Rome, just as they did even to many of our saints and martyrs.
You orthodox lot can turn nasty sometimes...!


"The Massacre of the Latins was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic (called "Latin") inhabitants of Constantinople,"

#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
This was clearly an act of the emperor and not the church.



#40
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523 (Quaestiones in IV Sent quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908)
 
Pope Pius IX (1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.
If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)
Who originally came up with the idea of papal infallibility? It was the creation of Peter Olivi, a Franciscan who was more than once accused of heresy (an auspicious parent for the concept of infallibility, wouldn't you say?). His reason for attempting to limit papal power seems to have been to prevent future popes from rescinding a ruling favorable to Franciscans made by Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280). Nicholas was willing to go along with this idea, but later popes rejected it outright. For example, Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

augustine
"As if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: 'Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed'."

Augustine had ample opportunity in his actions and vast literary works to express belief in the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. Of all the Fathers of the Church, Augustine wrote the most on church unity and authority. He wrote 75 chapters to the separated Donatists in "The Unity of the Church", using all sort of arguments to urge them to return to communion. Of the necessity of communion with Rome, or Rome as a centre of unity, or Rome's supreme authority, there is not one single word." (6) The silence is deafening.


The Anglo-Irish Catechism contained the following question:
(Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
(A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.
Every little Catholic boy and girl learnt this by heart. The Pope is not infallible.

#41
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
This was clearly an act of the emperor and not the church.
It wasn't 'an act' but several thousands acts of murder.   In April 1182 several thousand Roman Catholics -including women and children -  were murdered by mobs of orthodox christians in Constantinople.   Hence my remark "You orthodox lot can turn nasty sometimes...!"



#42
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Would such a massacre be easier to justify with or without the church's influence? THis is kind of the same tactic that Catholics take about the various atrocitieis they've been responsible for, and evangelicals use for theirs, and muslims for theirs: these aren't acts of churches / faiths / religions, that's not what god wants, these are acts of people, individuals going against god. Why is your use of this tactic valid? If the emperor said "in order to protect the faith, we must kill all those who don't share it, and Jesus told me this last night," what position would those of orthodoxy been put in? It's just religion justifying atrocities for political gain. If there were an all powerful god, he wouldn't need sloppy humans to do his dirty work. He'd simply correct the problem, and not always through bears mauling children who called someone bald, or laying waste to a city, or turning a guy's wife into salt. He wuoldn't need to order hebrews to murder amalekites when he could delete the amalekites instantly and have no one remember them, or have people remember that he did it. 

#43
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
there's no evidence in the earliest church that the roman church cannot error on faith and morals. you have to go out hundreds of years after jesus to see anything hinting at it. 
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
As I said, that was the emperor.

The emperor is not the church.

#45
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
In other words, you find being called out on an identity fallacy obnoxious.


Oh yeah, I forget, it is 2019 where self identification is proof of identity. 

The Orthodox Church does not believe in "Holy Wars". The Bishop of Rome has called crusades. Islam has Jihad built into it. The protestants had holy wars from the beginning.

The Church does not persecute those that are at variance from it, and The Church does not wage wars. No, quite the contrary, we are as lambs to the slaughter.







#46
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
No, quite the contrary, we are as lambs to the slaughter.
It probably didn't feel like you lot were cute little baa-lambs to a roman catholic with a sword stuck in his guts.

#47
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Where's the "identity fallacy" you're talking about exactly? As far as I can tell, your argument is "if good things happen, cause = ultimate reality / if bad things happen, cause = people not ultimate reality." You've made not a single attempt to argue any point, it starts to look like concession under the condition that you're allowed to keep your head in the sand. 

Why would god needs his lambs to do his dirty work, ever?
#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
God doesn't need anyone.

I am not saying anything of what you are saying. That is how you are interpreting what I am saying, which is wrong.

The church does not condone violence. In fact, the church is even against forms of coercion that are even commonly accepted in some evangelical circles, like, going to  a starving country and promising food to those who go to church services.

I am not conceding anything. I am rightly pointing out that just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they are a Christian. I am rightly pointing out that a group of murderous thugs who call themselves the pascifists do not represent pascifism.

#49
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I am not saying anything of what you are saying. That is how you are interpreting what I am saying, which is wrong.

Is god ever to blame for bad things happening? For example, is god at fault for childhood cancer existing? Did he author it, or was it brought about by 'the fall'? If your answer is no, god definitely put it there on purpose, okay, then god does things that are objectively bad. 

The church does not condone violence.
Your church doesn't follow any part of the old testament? Because that's full of Jesus's dad telling people to commit violent acts. 

I am rightly pointing out that just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they are a Christian. 
So how do I know you're orthodox, really?
#50
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x

Is god ever to blame for bad things happening? For example, is god at fault for childhood cancer existing? Did he author it, or was it brought about by 'the fall'? If your answer is no, god definitely put it there on purpose, okay, then god does things that are objectively bad. 
I don't know any god, we are talking about God.

Without whom, there is no such thing as objectively bad. If there is no Ultimate Reality, there can be no truth.

Well, as we are all here existing, I think that proves that there is some form of reality. If there is reality at all, The Ultimate Reality exists.




Your church doesn't follow any part of the old testament? Because that's full of Jesus's dad telling people to commit violent acts. 

The bible is not really your book to interpret, it belongs to the church.



 So how do I know you're orthodox, really?

I can't say how you would know, but I don't think it is important.


#51
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
[Ultimate reality crap]
Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers?  Our standing disagreement over terms and whatever version of reality we live in aside, you should still be able to answer the question. If reality contains children getting cancer, and reality has a plan for all people, then it plans for some children to die of cancer before every uttering a word to their mom or dad, right?

Must be tough to win new converts if the only people who can interpret your book are in your church already. The bible's supposed to be a manual for every person on earth, is it not?

I guess my knowing you ARE orthodox would go to how you know anyone is or isn't a Christian that says they are. You're the one who brought up identity. I go by what people say they are. I don't know how else to do it. 


#52
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Another atheist who hates a non existent god because nature is a death trap.
#53
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Is this your reason for denying reality? It doesn't fit your own arbitrary sense of aesthetics?

Only protestants think everyone should read the bible, and that is why they have something like 23+ thousand churches who all believe different things.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the very church descended from Jesus and the apostles. It is the original Church. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I think that counts for something.


But if you'd rather listen to Crazy uncle Joe who filled the proper paperwork and started their own church, go ahead.




#54
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@DeusVult
Limbo was a theological construct.  It may have been assumed to practically be doctrine because of its widespread communication.  It is not doctrine and there is no official teaching on the fate of the unborn.
There most certainly was though, the unchangeable has changed. You need to find truth.

#55
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Don't you get embarrassed when you realise you don't have an answer for any question you are asked? Not one!
#56
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Remember, I don't listen to any of them, to me you all have an equal chance of being right. I don't deny reality. I live in it. Now, I will ask again:


Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers?

At least I'm getting you to shine a bit of a better light on religion in general and yours specifically, though it's nothing we didn't already know: you can only believe your faith if you believe it already, you both have free will and do not have free will, you can act outside of god's will but not against his plan, and the bible, a manual for all of mankind at all times, is only to be read by professionals so take whatever they tell you and do it. Even if that something seems atrocious on the surface.  
#57
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Let me ask you a question instead.


If things in the world don't go the way you'd like, do you you curse reality for being contrary to how you'd like it?

You aren't really capable of understanding my faith because you have already determined that you know better. Really, you are simply mocking and trying to justify yourself.

If you wanted to understand my religion, I already told you that it is Truth worship. Since you can't reconcile this with what you think you already know, we are going through this silly game of you trying to accuse a God you claim to not believe in. If it was taken that you are asking this question because it is why you don't believe in God, you are implying that your reason for rejecting reality has to do with the fact that it isn't what you want it to be.





#58
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
If things in the world don't go the way you'd like, do you you curse reality for being contrary to how you'd like it?

Nope. I say wow, bad things exist for some reason or no reason. Maybe I should do my best to not add to the pile, or maybe I should try to help. There, I've answered. Now answer mine. Here it is again:

Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers? 

#59
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm sure you could blame God for everything if you root it back to God creating everything.


What good does it do to blame God?
#60
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Does the ultimate reality bear any responsibility for the existence of childhood cancer? Alzheimers? 

Why is this so difficult to answer? It's a yes or no. I don't believe in god, so it's not possible to assign blame that way.