Catholic Problems

[foudroyant]

Around and around we go. Go back and check this thread. I'm tired of doing your work for you.

Wasting time. I posted it in several places and then you ask "Where"?

Finished here.

You or anyone else (Catholics, here's your chance!) want to debate this one on one then set it up in the one on one section of this forum.

Robrecht your theology will be wrecked.

[robrecht]

Around and around we go. Go back and check this thread. I'm tired of doing your work for you.

Wasting time. I posted it in several places and then you ask "Where"?

Finished here.

You or anyone else (Catholics, here's your chance!) want to debate this one on one then set it up in the one on one section of this forum.

Robrecht your theology will be wrecked.

I don't want you to do any work for me. I'm sorry, but I have not made it a habit to read all of your posts.

[foudroyant]

I don't want you to do any work for me. I'm sorry, but I have not made it a habit to read all of your posts.

Then that is why you are not understanding. The information is there but your shut your eyes and say, "I don't see it".

Later............

[robrecht]

It's a long story, and it involves me quoting scripture and calling the priest biblically illiterate.

Maybe over a beer sometime. I'll even spring for a bottle of Maker's Mark if you bring a couple of cigars.

[robrecht]

Then that is why you are not understanding. The information is there but your shut your eyes and say, "I don't see it".

Later............

My eyes are wide open but I've yet to see any indication why I should make it a point to study your posts. The false accusation thing does not work in your favor. But, if you would like to point me to a particular post of yours, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

[Spartacus]

Foud has advanced this argument in probably half a dozen threads by now. As far as I know, he's never convinced anyone that God allowing Mary to know a lot more than she otherwise could means that she is suddenly completely omniscient. It's an equivocation, and he's the only one who can't see it.

[One Bad Pig]

I direct you to the article I just posted on the subject of Papal Primacy and the early Church.

Your article went to absurd lengths to re-write Canon 6 of Nicaea to support papal primacy. Didn't bother reading for further verbal hijinks beyond that point.

Now, what source do you use to justify your view that the Eastern Churches felt this way?

Pope Gregory the Great shows that the universal church once felt this way. Rome was given a primacy of honor because the seat was the capital of the Roman Empire (and secondarily because of its connection to Peter).

Well that's.....odd. I've never heard of 'that' translation of it, heck, even James didn't argue against the English translation of the text itself, but then again, I'm not an expert in those things. I'll need to find a copy of it in it's original language, and then a lexicon, to find out of if CE is accurate or not, but considering there are plenty of qualified scholars that claim it says the exact opposite, I'm still leaning towards the translation used by the apologists.

You'll have to be more specific because I quoted more than one translated phrase.

Although, you should note that the same source you cited, also says that the writings were not made "ex cathedra", and thus, do not provide any proof against Papal Infalliability even if he was wrong, which I'm still not granting.

Yep, I noted that the source claims the writings were not made "ex cathedra" - however, reading that term back into the 7th century is rather anachronistic IMO. In any case, it's a convenient excuse to preserve "infallibility."

So, in other words, you can't respond to the arguments?

Arguments that are patently absurd do not require a response.

Anyway, my point was that this piece refutes the idea that Pope Honorius 'taught' the heresy, as shown in the first section, where he deals with Honorius' own words, such as the "We confess" part.

When an article is patently wrong on things I can check, the rest of it is necessarily suspect. For all your castigation of James White, you have quite the penchant for citing highly polemic sources yourself.

He most certainly did not support Sergius. Pope John IV condemned Monothelitism as heresy.

Your evidence does not support your conclusion:

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Pope Honorius

This edict was based upon a misinterpretation of the Apology of John IV, who had shown that "one Will" was an improper expression, but had declared that Honorius and Sergius had used it in an orthodox sense. But John IV had neither defended nor blamed Honorius and Sergius for wishing the expression "two operations" to be avoided. . . . Honorius and Sergius must stand or fall together. John IV defended both.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Foud has advanced this argument in probably half a dozen threads by now. As far as I know, he's never convinced anyone that God allowing Mary to know a lot more than she otherwise could means that she is suddenly completely omniscient. It's an equivocation, and he's the only one who can't see it.

Pretty much.

[KingsGambit]

Incidentally, do we have any idea how early in Christian history the practice of praying to departed saints became commonplace?

[One Bad Pig]

Incidentally, do we have any idea how early in Christian history the practice of praying to departed saints became commonplace?

Fairly early (pre-Nicene). See section 1 of this article (though I disagree with the author's inclusion of examples 1.1 and 1.3).

[KingsGambit]

Fairly early (pre-Nicene). See section 1 of this article (though I disagree with the author's inclusion of examples 1.1 and 1.3).

This is very useful, thanks. I agree that the inclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas is odd, given how unclear the context is and how unlikely it is that "Angel of Repentance" refers to a particular departed Christian. Perhaps the citation of St. Cyprian in 2.3 is most useful here, as it is earlier than most, unquestionably orthodox, and unambiguous.

[Bill the Cat]

Arguments that are patently absurd do not require a response.

So how does Mickiel have so many replies?

[One Bad Pig]

So how does Mickiel have so many replies?

People have too much time on their hands? I never saw much point in engaging him.

[TimelessTheist]

Your article went to absurd lengths to re-write Canon 6 of Nicaea to support papal primacy. Didn't bother reading for further verbal hijinks beyond that point.

Stop dodging. Either respond to the points or admit you can't.

Pope Gregory the Great shows that the universal church once felt this way. Rome was given a primacy of honor because the seat was the capital of the Roman Empire (and secondarily because of its connection to Peter).

I don't see where Pope Gregory denies Papal Primacy. Perhaps you can pick out an excerpt?

You'll have to be more specific because I quoted more than one translated phrase.

"but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity". That one.

Yep, I noted that the source claims the writings were not made "ex cathedra" - however, reading that term back into the 7th century is rather anachronistic IMO. In any case, it's a convenient excuse to preserve "infallibility."

Well, I'm not sure what exactly would've constituted "ex cathedra" back then, but the fact of the matter is that if not all of the requirements are met, infallibility does not apply.

Arguments that are patently absurd do not require a response.

Oh my, more whining and mockery instead of responding to any of the points? I guess that makes it clear of which one of us is actually interested in honest debate, and which one is just interested in slinging mud.

When an article is patently wrong on things I can check,

You haven't proven anything in the article wrong, yet.

For all your castigation of James White, you have quite the penchant for citing highly polemic sources yourself.

Oh no, I don't dislike James White because of his arguments. I dislike James White because he's a disingenuous jerkwad with an ego the size of Great Britain. Heck, at one point, he actually compared his detractors to radical Muslim terrorists.

Your evidence does not support your conclusion:

Oh, I thought you meant that John supported the actual heresy, not just Sergius' language used in his letter to Pope Honorius. In which case, John IV was right, Sergius, in his letter to Honorius, did use "one will" in the orthodox sense, however, he did this by removing vital language from Cyrus' formulation of said heresy, so that, while he was writing one thing, he actually (quite deceptively, if I might add) meant another thing. This is all listed, once again, in the article by the Catholic Legate I linked to, if you would bother to actually read it instead of scoffing at it.

[TimelessTheist]

The Roman Catholic Church. I didn't have much experience of the others, except for what I described above. However, I also did some work with the L'Arche community founded by Jean Vanier. That was very inspiring.

Oh, wait. You didn't answer my question.

I'm sorry, I lost track. What was your question again?