Tab Content
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-13-2019, 10:49 PM
    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm To be clear, I intend to continue discussing with TER (and anyone else, if they decide they're interested) on the original thread as well, but this is something I want to get people's thoughts on. As far as the early church fathers go, I feel that this is the strongest pro-papal polemic that I've personally read through, to my knowledge. There are some other arguments that I'd use, and I would not have converted on the grounds of a single church father. I am curious to hear from others, but particular from Eastern Orthodox. After you have read this letter, do you feel that Jerome's statements here can be reconciled with an Eastern Orthodox view of the papacy? Or do you feel that Jerome was simply wrong (which would be an understandable conclusion, obviously not every Father agreed on everything) but ultimately that this particular saint and church father would've held more to an RC view of the pope than a Protestant one?
    1 replies | 87 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-13-2019, 01:49 PM
    Good question. I was kind of paraphrasing the statements of certain church fathers (particularly, Ireaneus, Cyprian, and Jerome), not a particular ecunemical council. I could fairly easily dig up the citations from which I'm building up to that idea, and explain why, but I'm not sure if that's the direction you want to go in or not. I'd also point to the whole Quartodeciman controversy, and how Ireaneus deals with it, as well as 1 Clement as supporting evidence. And of course there's also Matthew 16.
    4 replies | 130 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-13-2019, 12:52 PM
    I'm gonna start this thread by replying to what TER said on the other thread, but I consider this thread fair game for discussion on Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the various differences between them. I'm willing to grant that I struggle with this doctrine. Had I lived before 1870, I certainly would have sympathized with the conciliarists who did not believe in papal infallibility. I accept it because I believe the Bishop of Rome is the principle of unity in the Christian Church, and thus I do believe that a valid ecunemical council ruled in favor of this doctrine. I guess I don't see it so much as a "safety clause" so much as I see it a kind of spiritual version of the referee or umpire. His word is the final word in specific circumstances, but that doesn't mean he's a perfect person or that everything he says is perfect. There are problems with this analogy, but I think you can see where I'm going with it. The Magisterium exists to clarify tradition, not to overturn it and certainly not to make every off the cuff opinion of the Pope infallible. Annulments were much more rare before Vatican II. I don't have a problem with the concept in and of itself. Certain marriages just are not possible. To give an extreme example, consider for instance a man who "married" a woman that he later learned was his sister. Or perhaps a woman who already had a spouse, but lied to him. Say a man lied and claimed to be a layman, but in actuality he was already an ordained priest, bound to celibacy. Or consider perhaps the case of an Islamic child bride who is too young to really consent to marriage in the first place. These are among the conceivable situations where we could imagine an annulment being sensible. I agree that, especially post Vatican II, often annulments have basically become a cover for divorce, but that's not the way its supposed to work.
    4 replies | 130 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-09-2019, 01:05 AM
    I completely forgot about this thread... somehow. I'll try to get back to it (or the new thread if there is one, I need to check) either tomorrow or the day after.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 10:05 PM
    Its not JUST sex, but there is a lot about divorce and remarriage and his attitude towards them. I think its very concerning, and I think Francis has been pushing the envelope a lot.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 01:42 PM
    Anyone else notice the irony that we're now discussing RC vs EO on a Sola_Fide OP? LOL!
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 01:39 PM
    I'm enjoying it too. And yeah, I realize Rome has problems as well. I agree that Rome needs our (everyone's prayers.) And I'm not trying to take any cheap shots against EO. I seriously considered it at various times during my journey, and I think EO is definitely a *far* more plausible option than Protestantism of any type. In the end, any discussion of what reasons for decisions like this are going to come down to perceived deficiencies in the other side, but I don't mean any of them as attacks. All that said, to be honest, this probably wouldn't have been nearly as tough a decision for me had I lived in the 1950s. Perhaps that's a deficiency of mine. My biggest doubts regarding Catholicism likely come down to events that have taken place in the last 60 years.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 01:14 PM
    I'll try to get that one some time in the near future. Thanks! This raises a question. In your mind would this apply to the Roman Catholic Church? And why or why not? One thing I've noticed with EOs is I've never been able to get a definitive answer on whether Roman Catholic sacraments are valid or not, and I've seen some hinting that categorizations like valid or invalid might not exist in EO (BTW: A lot of what I know of EO, though not all of it, comes from Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's podcast "Ancient Faith" where he goes through Eastern Orthodoxy and contrasts it with a bunch of other worldviews. I listened to the introductory episodes and the episodes on Roman Catholicism and Magisterial Protestantism. hmmmmmm, that could raise another question ,but it would be more complex and I'd have to think about how to formulate it. And there are more key things that I wanted to address.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 12:31 PM
    So basically my issue with the EP and MP thing isn't that we need to epistemically know who is or isn't damned, but who is or isn't excommunicated. Those are *related*, because God did actually give the Church authority, but God also can work outside the structures he's established. God has bound salvation to the sacraments, but he himself is not bound. So my question to TER or any other EOs who are interested in interacting is this. Both the EP and the MP excommunicated each other. Both believe they have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. By what epistemic measure can we determine who is right? Again, I'm gonna reiterate since I know this is a common point of contention in this particular forum. Its not about whether someone is personally damned, but whether someone is in fact excommunicated. I grant that sometimes Rome has similar problems where it has multiple papal claimants, but these are in theory resolvable in the sense that *on principle* Rome says there is only one Pope, and every time there's been a dispute between multiple claimants, Rome eventually solved the problem by establishing a certain Pope, recognized by the entire Catholic world, and once the Catholic world knows who the Pope is, it knows who has the authority to make those kinds of ecclesial judgments. Whereas I'm not exactly sure how EO solves this problem.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 12:24 PM
    Nice to see you too! I know its been awhile.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 12:03 PM
    To be clear, we aren't talking about the subjective disposition of people's souls. I agree with you that that's up to God. I'm talking about ecclesiology, and the nature of ecclesiology. So for instance, contra what many Protestants think, the Council of Trent doesn't definitively say that any particular Protestant is going to Hell. We agree that that's up to God. But we do say that objectively the doctrine is heretical and that those who believe the doctrines condemned at Trent are *objectively* outside the Church. That's how every council works, and every ex cathedra statement, and that always is how they have worked. I don't think the EO would agree with the nature of your critique here, since you're conflating ecclesiology with the personal, private state of people's souls. My critique of EO there (which I realize, needs more discussion) deals with ecclesiology, not subjective disposition
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 12:00 PM
    Yes, I'm definitely willing to discuss it.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 11:32 AM
    Sola would flip if he knew I crossed the Tiber of all things :D
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-04-2019, 11:31 AM
    Rome vs EO was the hardest decision, and I'm less sure that I'm right there than that I am on Protestantism, which I am now convinced is completely unworkable. To briefly summarize it, two things 1: it seems to me that the fathers saw the Bishop of Rome as an extremely important role. Even if an EO wishes to argue that Rome has exaggerated the role of the Bishop of Rome, it still seems that you cannot have the fulness of the Church without them. Yet both Rome and EO claim to be the Church Jesus founded. However you take Matthew 16 with regards to Peter, I don't think Peter can be in one place and the Church be in a different place, if that makes sense. 2: The impossibility of Eastern Orthodoxy to determine, ultimately, who has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Such as for instance with the recent mutual excommunications of Moscow and Constantinople . I know some people on the EO side have argued that that's a question that's above a layperson's paygrade and such, and I get that, but in the end, philosophically, I think there's got to be somewhere where the buck stops, so to speak. And Jesus seems to say that's with Peter, he hands Peter the keys, and the other apostles are given the exercise of the keys, but not the keys themselves. As a third point, which isn't as important as the other two, but still significant, it seems to me that EO has an inconsistent attitude toward development of doctrine, whereas Rome seems to be pretty consistent with the notion that it develops doctrine. Hence you have a lot of lack of clarity on what exactly EO believes on certain key issues. Maybe I'm just too western :)
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-01-2019, 11:42 PM
    Ah, I pop in briefly and remember this was the last thing I posted. If anyone cares, I'm currently a catechumen in the Catholic Church, Ukrainian Rite.
    127 replies | 5667 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-01-2019, 11:38 PM
    What that law had in mind was not merely "fat kids", but essentially irrepairable rebellion. The parents (who presumably wouldn't actually want to have their kids killed casually) AND the elders of the town would have to agree that execution was justified. ANd if you look at that text, the parents are accusing the (presumably adult) child of DRUNKENNESS, not just gluttony. Essentially its an adult child who's rebellious and refuses to stop getting drunk and stuffed on their parent's resources. Yes, its harsh, but its not as harsh as you think it is.
    11 replies | 351 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    05-01-2019, 11:36 PM
    Even assuming this passage is about rape (I'm not sure, some people think its about consensual fornication instead), its not a distinction without a difference. The presumption is that the girl and her father consider it preferable to be married to this man than to remain unmarried. The man is on the hook. Note that the girl's father can refuse the marriage.
    11 replies | 351 view(s)
No More Results

5 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    You forgive me for speaking the truth?

    Isn't that special?
  2. View Conversation
    //
  3. View Conversation
    Apology for what "Rond"?

    A) You have NEVER refuted my point about Malachi dumbass.

    B) You've just admitted you've been lying about not being Sola_Fide.
  4. View Conversation
    OK, you definitely aren't SF, SF never responded to my Vms
  5. View Conversation
    Sola_Fide is someone who used to post here and was banned mostly for being too mean to pseudo-Christians... It was kind of ridiculous IMO. Some people here think you are him.... I don't.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 5 of 5
About Rond

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
168
Posts Per Day
0.10
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
5
Most Recent Message
09-11-2014 12:35 PM
General Information
Last Activity
11-21-2014 11:53 AM
Join Date
09-07-2014
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. Christian Liberty
  2. Kevin007 Kevin007 is offline

    Member

    Kevin007
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2
No results to display...
No results to display...

12-11-2016