Replies

Not at all! Because (1) the Papacy was ordained by Christ,

That a supreme infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome was ordained by Christ, and manifest historically is only an assertion begging the question. This is not seen Scripture despite the extrapolative attempts of Roman Catholic apologists, while even Catholic scholarship testifies against this being the reality in the early church. Do you hold that an assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for both men and writings to be established as being of God, and truth preserved? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means such is the perpetually assuredly infallible authority and interpreters of Scripture, and thus dissent from them is rebellion against God? These seems to be the basis RC arguments.

(2) the powers of infallibility are so narrowly circumscribed,

That is irrelevant in the light of the preceding. In addition, that attribution of power came from the bishops, much contested, and the range was a matter of interpretation*. What would your consider an infallible definition of the criteria/formula?

(3) the pope cannot contradict Tradition, nor innovate, but can only discern what tradition has always been.

That is effectively meaningless, as since he can only be right, and can autocratically define which tradition is Really Tradition, then of course prayer to departed saints in Heaven cannot be a contradiction, or the Assumption or papal infallibility etc., an innovation, despite the absence of actual evidence in Scripture or early history, or what the EOs say.

(Which is not to say that he cannot enunciate it more clearly; see below.)

Which means a clearly enunciated infallible decree as,

If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." “ Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

among other teachings, is later “explained” as not meaning what it most clearly sounds like, and was affirmed as, after Rome lost its unScriptural use of the sword of men.

But such means Rome declares she is unchanging and basically solves the problem of diverse interpretations, but in reality there are many variant interpretations of what Rome said in the past and present among Catholics, even as to what is infallible and what level other teachings fall under, and what and how much dissent is allowed, as well as to varying degrees, their meaning.

This would be more pronounced if Catholics were more doctrinal intensive as evangelicals overall are, and thus the most pronounced divisions with Rome are among those who the most committed to doctrine. Who are not uniform themselves. Some RCs do not believe a Baptist is representing Christ even if preaching Acts 10:36-43, and other do not believe Prots can be saved unless the repent of basic Protestant doctrines, while the more traditional RCs interpret Boniface by saying,

Thus we are left with an apologetical task brethren, to dismantle the position of the eastern hoard of schismatics, those servants of the diabolical one who claim to be the sheep of Christ but are not... — http://www.romancatholicism.net/epistle20120205.htm

>> Yet “without contradiction” does not mean it is actually taught in Scripture or even that its veracity is based upon or requires weight of Scriptural substantiation, or even that the reasons or arguments upon which it may be based are infallible. <<

That’s correct; were it not for controversies over the meaning of scripture, there would be no reason for reserving the right to issue infallible proclamations about moral doctrine (which is the only kind of infallible proclamations a pope can make).

Which amounts to declaring Truth by fiat, which you are honest to affirm, yet this perpetual infallible magisterial basis was not the what the church began by, nor how Truth was recognized nor preserved in Scripture. It is neither necessary nor promised.

EO assent to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, and remained sinless for her entire lifetime; the rejection of the Immaculate Conception by the EO is primarily because it is expressed in terms of original sin, an Augustinian formulation which the EO have not assented to.
RCs tend to minimize the differences between the EOs and RCs, and while as said, the latter tends to be less precise and doctrinally intensive, and one may find variant views on this, yet even Saint John Maximovitch, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, reposed in 1966, who is considered one of the greatest Orthodox Saints in the 20th century, stated,

We Orthodox believe that the Panagia was conceived and born in a state of sin since she is a human being just like the rest of us. Only Christ was free of sin. We do venerate the Panagia highly though. She is the holiest of all the Saints and is like a member of our families. We do believe that the Panagia committed no actual personal sins. We believe that both through God's grace and her free cooperation with God's grace - both go together- she committed no sin. We believe she overcame every temptation to sin and thus remained ever pure, even in her mind and soul. — http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/12/an-orthodox-christian-understanding-of-the-immaculate-conception/

Others:

I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to. In the Roman Catholic understanding, it seems that Mary, who according to Roman doctrine had been exempted from the guilt of original sin [the Orthodox do not accept that humans share the guilt of the first sin but, rather, only the consequences]...If Mary had been “sin-proofed,” so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior...While much that the Orthodox say of Mary “sounds” similar to that which is taught by Roman Catholicism, there are serious differences on many levels. — https://oca.org/questions/saints/sinlessness-of-mary

They do hold that Mary was cleansed and never personally sinned thus All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate. In contrast to this tradition, in Scripture we see the Holy Spirit characteristically revealing notable aspects of his characters, from how many fingers one has to being sinless, thrice at least saying that of Christ, and never saying that of any other culpable soul, yet it i a cardinal doctrine. Nor did Paul teach ancient legends as tradition, but spoke the inspired word of God, which normatively written down as a result, as seen by a study of “word of God/the Lord.

Scripture never says Paul sinned after his conversion either, but unlike RCs are tend to heed the admonition “not to think of men above that which is written.” (1Cor. 4:6) Yet based upon the Catholic hermeneutic of silence and extrapolation used for Mary, she could teach that Mary lived to be 160 like Abraham, and parted the Red Sea, and Jordon, kept the sun from going down, and had 6 fingers on each hand, slew a thousand men with a jawbone of a donkey, caused a 3.5 year drought, made iron to swim, cleansed lepers, raised the dead, was supernaturally transported, and had heavenly visions, and wrote the book of Hebrews and will be one of the two witnesses in Revelation. If the “chapter and verse please” Reformation had not occurred then who knows who Rome would not have been restrained from doing, seeing as she makes humbly holy Mary into a demigoddess, though she is rather marginally written of even in the gospels.

Also, the EO assent to the notion of a purification in the afterlife; purgatory is simply a Latin word, and there are non-doctrinal connotations to the Latin which the EO find troublesome.

Though they have no formal doctrine about purgatory, and several schools of thought exist on the topic of purification after death, yet it is not simply non-doctrinal connotations to the Latin which the EO can find troublesome.

Some Eastern Orthodox sources, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, consider Purgatory to be among "inter-correlated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.” Some Orthodox believe in the "toll gate" theory by which the dead go to successive "toll gates" where they meet up with demons who test them to determine whether they have been guilty of various sins during life and/or tempt them to further sin. If they have not repented and been absolved of those sins, or if they give in to sin after death, they will be taken to Hell.- http://orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory

According to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, The moral progress of the soul, either for better or for worse, ends at the very moment of the separation of the body and soul; at that very moment the definite destiny of the soul in the everlasting life is decided. ... There is no way of repentance, no way of escape, no reincarnation and no help from the outside world. Its place is decided forever by its Creator and judge.

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that it is necessary to believe in an intermediate after-death state in which believers are perfected and brought to full divinization, a process of growth rather than of punishment, which some Orthodox have called purgatory.[71] Eastern Orthodox theology does not generally describe the situation of the dead as involving suffering or fire, although it nevertheless describes it as a "direful condition." — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory#Eastern_Orthodox

The Coptic Orthodox View on the Purgatory

1. Purgatory is against the doctrine of Atonement and Redemption. 2. Purgatory is against the doctrine of Salvation. 3. Purgatory is against the sacrament of repentance. Those departed are awaiting without worry or unrest....Our Church absolves the soul of the departed during the prayer. She absolves her from all the sins she committed while in the flesh. — http://www.suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084916893&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3

The earliest Church fathers referenced them authoritatively;

You mean some considered them fit for doctrine and church use, and others did not. Merely referencing something does not give the whole work it authority, else the pagan poets Paul quoted were authoritative.

The disputes (including St. Jerome’s prefaces) dealt chiefly with the topic of using them to convert Jews.

That Jerome and others rejected purported inspired Scripture in condescension to the Jews, versus the best case for historical establishment, is more wishful than historical. The Catholic Encyclopedia (in the face of ancient opposition) states, Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

And this dissent through centuries and right into Trent is not explained as being due to the Jews. More.

Actually, this [Lk. 24:344] is a great example of the varying canons: no mention is made of the Khetuvim, which include what the Protestants call the “apocrypha”,

Actually, i do not know where you chose this information from, or any of your their assertions, but from what i read the Ketuvim ("writings") = Hagiography included just 11 books: Psalms, Lamentations, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (known as 1 and 2 Esdras in Greek Bibles) and Chronicles.

Rather, Jesus refers only to “in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms.”

And since it is generally accepted that Psalms was part of the Writings, thus this is a strong indication that the Lord held to the tripartite Palestinian canon, with is believed to be like that of Philo and Josephus (if he can be believed much). Melito included books under The Law and the Prophets” that are now understood to be part of the Writings.

The distinctions among Christians are relatively minor compared to among the Jews, where some Jews considered only 5 books to be scripture, while other Jews considered 22 books to be scripture

True, but as the abundant use of OT (24 different books) saw no recorded conflict with the Jews, then it indicates it was not a issue, at least in the gospels and Acts.

BTW, i saw your research before on the sex abuse issue and thought it was rather well done.

My attempt was not to decisively “win” every Protestant v Catholic theological debate, but merely to give outlines of the Catholic position. I would make a few quick clarifications, however, then move to a point about the Orthodox.

>> That a supreme infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome was ordained by Christ, and manifest historically is only an assertion begging the question.
(1) The answer predates the question. (2) Although non-Catholics interpret the bible differently, the answers based on scripture.
Not only are there specific verses where Jesus gives such authority to Peter, and that such an office shall not go vacant, there is the simple precedence that Peter is referenced more than three times as often in the gospel as all other disciples combined; even in the gospels, with Jesus right there among them, they ask Peter to ask Jesus questions, rather than asking Jesus himself. How odd is that, if not that the gospel writers were selecting incidents to demonstrate a precedent?

>> True, but as the abundant use of OT (24 different books) saw no recorded conflict with the Jews, then it indicates it was not a issue, at least in the gospels and Acts. <<

But that’s just it! There was NOT abundant use of all 24 books! Most of the Khetuvim / Writings / Hagiography are barely mentioned!

>> And this dissent through centuries and right into Trent is not explained as being due to the Jews. More. <<

It’s true as your source insists that Hippo and Carthage were not infallible. (I actually erred in stating that Trent established the canon infallibly; Florence did, but I mentally glossed over that since Florence was fairly close in time to the Reformation. Florence was infallible.) But regarding their historical value, so what? Do they no less establish that without dissent the entirety of the bishops gathered assented to the “larger” canon? And in fact, Florence was so much more remarkable than Trent, since it gained the assent of not only the Catholic bishops (that vote, incidentally, is wildly misleading, but too tangential to argue about), but each and every Orthodox bishop present.

>> You mean some considered them fit for doctrine and church use, and others did not. Merely referencing something does not give the whole work it authority, else the pagan poets Paul quoted were authoritative. <<

No, I stated, “referenced them authoritatively,” meaning that they referenced them as providing authority for a theological assertion.

ABOUT THE ORTHODOX:

The Catholic doctrine about purgatory is:
Christ’s atonement is complete and entirely effective for the eternal effects of sin.
People whose contrition for their sins has been imperfect suffer temporal effects of their sins before entering Heaven. This state is called purgatory.
The suffering in purgatory is qualitatively different from Earthly suffering because those in purgatory are sustained by certain faith, which is undistracted by worldly matters
The suffering of those in purgatory can be lessened and shortened by prayers for the dead, by acts of charity dedicated the deceased, and most especially by the Holy Sacrifice of Mass.
Those in purgatory are certain to go to Heaven.

That the Ancient Church prayed for the dead is undeniable. Paul even refers to baptizing non-believers “for the sake of the dead.”

Pope Shenouda’s invention of the “toll-booth theory” is scandalous: It’s an attempt to rationalize why people might pray for the dead in the absence of purgatory. But it is theologically absurd and has no basis in history. In contrast, the Catholic position is laid out very plainly in the 2nd Book of Maccabees, which the Orthodox accept as canonical: to attain forgiveness for the sins of the dead. Not only is the practice illustrated, but a prophet of God proclaims the practice just and effective, and that the prayers are an expression of confidence in the resurrection of the dead.

Now, Pope Shenouda is Coptic, which was in schism long before the Great Schism. So I’m not sure how much of the Tradition of the Orthodox-Catholic church the Copts assent to, but the Catholics interpret Paul in 1 Cor 3:11-15 as describing (admittedly with possible metaphor) purgatory. This interpretation was argued by St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Origen and St. Gregory. Admittedly, these are mostly “Western” Fathers, but their testimony lies in the deposit of faith of the Eastern Churches as well, and they find support as well in St. Cyprian, St. Bernard, St. Bede, St. Isadore.

Yet, the Orthodox wiki cannot repudiate Shenouda’s facially ridiculous speculation? How sad and tragic.