Replies

Unfortunately history, tradition, scholarship, and explicit scripture don’t work in your favor.

Says you.

Simply referring to quotes and arguments in a book will not help.

The book is not argumentative. It is work of history and ecclesiology. From your comment I gather you have not read a word of it. This demonstrates a total disregard for anything that does not bolster your already determined beliefs.

The question must always be whether a large consensus of theologians agree with this thesis and the answer is emphatically in the negative.

Says you.

For sure Benedict XVI- sometimes called the theological Einstein of our times, did not accept this either as Cardinal Ratzinger or as distinguished professor of theology at the University of Rensburg.

Benedict XVI is held in very high regard by almost all serious Orthodox theologians. This is in part because he has a decidedly friendly view of Orthodoxy. It is certainly fair to say that he doesn't agree with us on everything, but he is not hostile to the Church and his writings have shown an exceptionally clear and nuanced insight into what divides us. This in stark contrast to most of what you have posted.

First you admitted to the primacy of Rome until the Orthodox breakaway.

Primus inter pares until Rome broke away. In no way was Rome's primacy more than one of honour and respect. Primacy was conferred by the Ecumenical Councils, not by divine right. Rome got her primacy by virtue of being the imperial capital in the West. See Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon (emphasis mine)...

"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the capital city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."

Let’s say 1054. By this reasoning, the Holy Spirit suddenly changed course, took side, and went with the Orthodox. The absurdity of this is too patent for comment.

The Holy Spirit did not depart from the Church. Rome did. The Holy Spirit was not the personal property of the Roman See.

Second, you speak to more than seven councils but the additional councils are not recognized by some Eastern Orthodox in the way Councils are defined.

Again, not true. All nine councils were and are received in their entirety by the Universal Church (Rome being in schism at the time of the 9th). The only difference between the local churches is in a matter of semantics. Some refer to the latter two as Great and Holy Synods or General Councils of the Church, as opposed to Ecumenical Councils to distinguish them from the Imperial Councils (i.e. the first seven). But in every respect they are fully Universal Councils of the Church whose decrees are recognized by each and every local Orthodox Church. Indeed the Second Sunday of Lent is dedicated to St. Gregory Palamas and his vindication by the Ninth Ecumenical Council. Once again you seem to be getting your "facts" about us and our beliefs from non-Orthodox sources. That does not bode well.

Third, any rebuttals on Eastern orthodoxy are seen as “canned” posts rather than an attempt to rebut the reasoning.

Not any. Just the ones you have been posting. I have seen some very serious and thoughtful Catholic responses to Orthodoxy. I did not agree with them, but they exist. And among their many distinguishing features is that serious theologians avoid brief quotes from the Fathers taken out of context. They of course have also actually read the Patristics which I suspect is not the case here.

The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and “the seven ecumenical councils”—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787).

Will you PLEASE STOP repeating this silliness that I have rebutted over and over again. If you are only getting your deeply flawed information from anti-Orthodox sources there is simply no point in carrying this discussion any further. Your refusal to consider any sources outside of those from your co-religionists is what I normally expect from Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other cult members.

While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.

So it is a figment of my imagination that every single Orthodox parish in the world just commemorated two weeks ago the vindication of St. Gregory Palamas by the Ninth Ecumenical Council?

One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical.

See above.

In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is “accepted by the church” as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.

See above.

Thus the notion of eight or nine Councils is matter of opinion not universally accepted. But most importantly it detracts from Petrine infallibility.

Now that you mention it, yes it does. Hmmmm...

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not...

The external marks of the Catholic Church is its universality just like the mustard tree metaphor used by Christ. You cannot have a broken branch of the tree claiming for itself as the tree.

No, you can't. Which is one of the many reasons for why I reject Rome's claims.

Still waiting for your answer to my questions concerning the Eighth Ecumenical Council (as well as all my other questions).