Post tagged with Orthodox, Catholic, and atheist topics

Discussion · 20

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

• − opinion#1884 241 likes at the source

  "Constantinople II teaches papal supremacy" 😭😭 that's why the pope got thrown in jail and forced to submit to the council even though he demanded they submit to his apostolic authority

  • − opinion#1895 29 likes at the source

    @anothercrusade.x he just gave the reason he was thrown in jail, which proves he didn't have supreme authority in the first hundred years
  • − opinion#1896 7 likes at the source

    when u look to understand what Ben said, he simply showed that the universal disagreed with the "supreme pope" and forced him to submit to the will of the church. Much in the same way the church forced Jerome to add the Deuterocanon to the scriptures. The Church is supreme, not an individual within the Church.
  • − opinion#1897 3 likes at the source

    If the universal church not the emperor throws the pope in jail for thinking that he alone has authority over a council then that shows his authority meant nothing against the church in the first hundred years of Christianity. Ben in the original comment said he was thrown to jail because he didn't submit to the council and demanded that they submit to him
  • − opinion#1898

    Why was he thrown in jail again? Because of pure imperial overreach. Justinian dragged Vigilius to Constantinople and locked him down until he folded. Look at the actual politics of the era: it was repeatedly the emperor forcing his will on the Church, and the Church waiting the emperor out or resisting. That pattern runs straight through the 7th century until the popes finally started saying "no more." You see the same dynamic all the way to the Pope crowning Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor.
• − opinion#1890 25 likes at the source

  They literally excommunicated a pope in the 600s
• − opinion#1887 6 likes at the source

  Why are we fighting? We need to stay united whether or not you want to be under the pope. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are apostolic because they came from the original disciples, who just went to different areas to spread the teaching. I'd rather follow the Roman Catholic because of the line of Peter, but that's my choice

  • − opinion#1899

    it's funny the last guy removed his comment anywho so please list the heresy and maybe I ll comment and clarify for you since ppl still are so ignorant on what happened in these councils they hear something and think they know it all
  • − opinion#1900

    Peter's line begins in Antioch. but furthermore there can only be 1 united belief. Roman church and the EO have different beliefs, so only 1 can be correct (or both wrong but Christ said Church would not fall so 1 has to be correct). It is easy to trace where Rome innovations in dogma happen, while EO traces its dogma directly to Christ and the disciples teachings. Thus Rome appeals to later church authorities to justify their place.
• − opinion#1886 2 likes at the source

  As an RC, a few things. The Catechism says the Petrine promises pertain to the person & declaration. It's not just binding/loosing, but the visible source of unity. I'd agree it's very hard to prove V1 from 1st Millenium ecclesiology. And I don't like it when Catholics hold that position dogmatically. But that's not our burden of proof. V1 can validly develop from Roman Primacy in the 1st Millenia, as Cardinal Newman puts it. The first 8 councils only ever predicate the Petrine Office to Rome, citing Lk22, Jn21, Mt16 & succession of St.Peter. They also affirm it as a perpetual statute. Per the Concilliar evidence, the office/divine promises reside solely with Rome - meeting the burden of proof for the Catholic case. Citing disciplinary or jurisdictional Canons doesn't disprove this. The questions for Orthodox become: 1) If Rome schismed, what happened to the Petrine Office? 2) If it resided with other Sees, why is this never mentioned in the Concilliar setting? 3) If Rome schismed, when & who decided?
• − opinion#1881

  Even the Papacy itself admits the Eastern Churches never submitted to Rome's authority in the first millennium, and that forgeries like the Donation of Constantine were used to build up the developed notion of papal supremacy. It's all in the Vatican-approved Chieti documents and in Denzinger. But Catholics don't want to face the fact that their system rests on lies.
• − opinion#1882

  The Catechism treats Peter's faith as also the rock, since it's the faith of the one named Peter... Is that really so difficult? The Catechism also says Peter himself is the rock. All the apostles were asked, "Who do you say I am?" And after the others guessed, only Peter was chosen to receive divine infallible revelation about who Christ is, which made it clear to Christ to give Peter alone (the Greek word for "you" there is singular) the keys to the kingdom, which are more than just binding and loosing authority...
• − opinion#1883

  Canon 28 was struck down at Chalcedon. On canon 28, Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople even wrote to pope Leo I saying: "Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness." Canon 28 wasn't added by the Eastern Church until the council of Trullo in 692.
• − opinion#1885

  Catholic here, I think you're skipping an important step, one the EO often bring up - namely how a text of the ECF was received and understood. Development always happens, we should agree on that. But did the early church understand Peter's role and the seat of Rome the way Vatican 1 defines it? Are there any examples of it actually being exercised? - That's the question.
• − opinion#1888

  Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431): "We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by your holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle." Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431): "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ... and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."
• − opinion#1889

  Hey there, your videos have been showing up for me lately and I want to start by saying good work. Second, I saw a comment where you said "Protestants arent even in the conversation" (about the "best" denomination). I'm curious what you mean by that and how you got there. I'd call myself a conservative baptist, but I wasn't raised in the church. I did get introduced to the church I'm in now about a year after my conversion, so roughly 2 years ago. I know very well I have a lot to learn, and ultimately I want to follow Christ as best I can. I believe denominations matter, as does the church. I do believe the church has authority and should have structure. I know very little about orthodoxy, and trying to learn it while actively attending, serving, and being on staff as an intern at my church feels daunting. So I'm curious if you could make the case in laymans terms, and answer my original question.
• − opinion#1891

  Silly take. Verses in scripture can carry more than one meaning. You know this. It's time my orthodox brothers stopped making arguments you'd expect from a Prot. His name was literally changed. There are direct parallels to Isaiah 22:22, look at Luke 22, look at John 21... The papacy isn't built on Matthew 16 alone. God bless.
• − opinion#1892

  As a Catholic, man. Don't give Alex Jurado any screen time. If you want to engage us, engage us through Catholic apologists who shouldn't be working a 9-5. Like Trent Horn, or Joe Heschmeyer. 1. Alex Jurado shouldn't be on media as a Catholic apologist because of what he did. 2. Alex Jurado is low hanging fruit.
• − opinion#1893

  Also I believe and know the only reason Peter ever went to Rome is that it was the capital of the Roman empire at the time. That's it. Meanwhile ALL seven ecumenical councils happened in the eastern Greek part. All were written in Greek. The original Bible (NT) was all written in Greek. Not Latin. The fathers and saints of roughly the first eight to ten centuries were almost exclusively Greek. The Philokalia, that masterpiece - all volumes in Greek. Christ also spoke and wrote Greek (not Latin). All the apostles wrote their books exclusively in Greek. The ONLY book that talks about the future and closes the Bible is written in Alexandrian Koine Greek on Patmos, a Greek island, by Apostle John, who also died there.
• − opinion#1894

  You make some interesting points. However, Peter and only Peter (Cephas, big rock) was given the keys to the kingdom. True, all Apostles got the power to bind and loose later. But only one person can hold the keys at a time, as shown in Isaiah. Also, the Pope must speak ex cathedra, from the chair of Peter, to fully exercise the primacy. The Pope is also Bishop of Rome. We never see him acting in that role because as Pope his travels and words carry weight worldwide. It doesn't mean you agree with what he says, but he isn't speaking infallibly when answering a question. Peter and only Peter, before Jesus ascended, was told by Jesus to strengthen the other Apostles. Debating something settled at ecumenical councils only keeps Catholics and Orthodox apart. Wars, politics, and egos have kept us apart too long. While we debate, the evil one is trying to destroy us all. Let's focus on winning souls for Christ.