** Hmm… let’s see here. Why is it that the accounts of the early Ecumenical Councils don’t have Peter making key decisions? He was listened to, and had a great deal of influence given his closeness to Christ, but why were decisions made by consensus and voting?
It seems rather odd for this to be done if the Church recognized Peter as its authority.
Why? Christ is the head of the Church. Why is a single Apostle given special power and authority?
You complain about my lack of citations, then expect us to simply take that for granted? Catholic religious art doesn’t follow the theological conventions of the early Church, either.
** That does not mean the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Son.
Then why does the rest of the Catholic Church include it?
** Bingo. What is a heresy other than a difference in theology?
It certainly taught that, regardless of whether it’s taught now.
One of Orthodoxy’s primary tenets is that it’s not merely the Scriptures or Church rulings alone that are the Apostolic Faith, but all of the teachings of the Church. To the Orthodox, it matters not one whit if the Catholics don’t regard a Church teaching as dogma. To the Orthodox, everything taught by the Church is dogma, in a very real sense.
Read the cite I provided in the post above. The Orthodox do not believe in “Original Sin”.
You’re right. We have some serious doctrinal issues here. It’s a shame you didn’t learn what they were before beginning this thread.
Today, the Church recognizes the Pope as its authority, but he exercises this authority in collegial union with the Bishops.
This is essentially the same form as the early discussions - consensus, and voting - that characterized the early Apostles, and Peter’s role amongst them.
Rick
Who knew a thread started to apprise Roman Rite readers about the Eastern Rite would turn into an Orthodox vs. Rome discussion?
** Precisely. The Orthodox recognize no such authority – the only such power was held by the Ecumenical Council, which brought together representatives of all Bishops. They believe that the Holy Spirit would guide the decisions of the Council, not the individual decisions of the members made independently.
It most certainly is not. Peter had no more direct power than any other Bishop. Clearly, he had significant influence as one of the Apostles, and his opinion is given in many of the earliest Council decisions – but so are many others’ opinions.
I know this was meant tongue-in-cheek, but: everyone familiar with the nature of the Eastern Rite.
We recognize “the original sin”, the rebellion of Eve and Adam. It was the first sin, making it the original sin. We also recognize a “fallen state” or “fallen nature” that all humans (but one and ONLY one, and that one is Christ and NOBODY ELSE, not even the all-holy Theotokos) were born with. What we reject is the doctrine that we are all born with “inherited guilt”. We are not guilty of the original sin. That belonged to the perpetrators, not their descendents. We are no responsible for it nor in any way culpable for it. There is no need for anyone alive today to “atone” for the original sin.
However, the original sin tossed a spanner into the gears, as it were. Thus, our “fallen nature”. It is the sins we commit, both intentional and uninentional, for which atonement is necessary.
We likewise reject the whole Anselmian “honor of God” explanation.
Theotokos = Virgin Mary, in case anyone was wondering.
And for what it’s worth from someone who has attended both Catholic mass and an Orthodox service, I can say that they were vastly different in style, delivery, and content*. Some beliefs may be shared, but not equally emphasized.
Because that early on, there probably weren’t that many major doctrinal questions going on- the big issue of the day was whether Jewish Law should be imposed on Gentile converts. It wasn’t until a while after the Council of Jerusalem that such things as Nicolaitinism, Gnosticism, etc. started to creep in.
When he spoke, the whole assembly fell silent… I think it would be fair to say that if a consensus couldn’t be reached, Peter would have cast the “tie breaking” vote.
**
Because Christ wants unity in His Church, and for that to happen, there has to be a point where “the buck stops here”, otherwise you get things like thirty thousand different denominations squabbling over whose interpretation of Scripture and doctrine is right.
**
OK, here it is, from Chas H. Clifton’s Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics
OK, now let’s see your citation that Rome was ever Iconoclastic.
You’ve never been inside a Byzantine Catholic Church, have you? Byzantine Catholic Iconography follows the same conventions as Orthodox iconography. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
**
I already told you, I don’t know. Ask a Latin Rite Catholic.
**
A deliberate and conscious deviation from formal Church teaching. If your logic were followed to the extreme, the Catholic Church would have to excommunicate me, my entire parish, all the nice folks at St. Gabriel’s, and a whole bunch of other nice folks who are currently in full communion with Rome, but, being Eastern Catholics, hold the same views on theology, spirituality, sin, redemption, and Man’s relationship with God as the Orthodox. They haven’t done it yet, so it’s obvious they don’t regard the Orthodox viewpoints in these matters as heretical, only as legitimately held differences in perspective. Remember, for over a thousand years, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were one church, and the Western churches weren’t insisting prior to 1054 that the Eastern viewpoint was heretical, nor were the Eastern churches claiming the Western viewpoint was heretical. They maybe regarded each other as a bit strange…
** OK, caught you in a lie. The Orthodox do believe in Original Sin. Here’s a link to an article about the Orthodox beliefs about Original Sin, direct from the Orthodox Catechism. http://www.gocanada.org/Catechism/catorsin.htm
BTW, the article you linked to does not state that the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin. It only states that the Orthodox do not believe in inherited guilt- which is a belief shared by Byzantine Catholics. The only thing in the article that differs from Byzantine Catholic teaching whether Mary was sinless. The evidence presented is that she “presumed to instruct Christ” at the marriage in Cana. The passage cited is actually frequently used in Catholic defense of the faith as an example of Mary’s intercession with Christ on Man’s behalf- presenting their need to Him (They ran out of wine), then telling the servants to follow His instructions. I don’t think that this is an irreconciliable difference between the two churches. **
Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that?
OK, Dogface
Ok, read it. Read it again. There is nothing here that insists that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It merely states the the three Persons of the Trinity are realated to, in, and consubstantial with one another. Once again, you’re reading things into statements that just aren’t there.
BTW, in case you haven’t checked, the title of this thread is, “Latin Rite Catholic Dopers: Ask the Byzantine Catholic Chick”. I don’t presume to speak for the Latin Rite or defend it to the Orthodox. I’m not a Latin Rite Catholic. Nor am I Eastern Orthodox. But I do know that, with a few small differences, Byzantine Catholic theology and spirituality are identical with that of the Orthodox. I don’t mind fielding questions from other varieties of Christians, I’ll answer them to the best of my ability, but really, to come into this thread spitting venom, starting arguments without citation or historical evidence, then accusing me of being the one who did it… It is not valid for you to attack an Eastern Christian and demand that they defend Western Christian beliefs.
If you have a problem with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, start a new thread and take it up with the Latins.
And, as you, yourself, have pointed out, the Uniat churches were not constantly aligned with Rome, but made the transitions in the last couple of hundred years. Your argument appears to be with the Uniats, not with “the West” or with “Rome” (where a claim that “only rites” separate the churches is never made) and your continued interjection of that baseless claim (particularly the silly “conspiracy” and “propaganda” aspects of it) is what I object to.
G’day. As an Anglican fond of getting into acrimony about “your chuch started when the king wanted a divorce” canard comes up, I’m not surprised what happened here.
But, my namesake the sainted Bishop of Smyrna having been brought into the fray (by Rome, as it happens, it might be worth our while to see what St. Irenaeus has to say about the incident in question (emphases are my own):
I do not see Polycarp’s awarding of authority over him and his church to Anicetus (Bishop of Rome, anachronistically Pope) but quiite the reverse – but I also do not see the insistence on orthopraxis that has been the cause of so many disputes, but again quite the reverse. And I humbly submit that there’s a lesson to be learned in that.
Ah, Polycarp comes in, his voice of reason like a cool breeze on a hot summer night…
I think what we have here is an example of Eastern and Western Christians working and playing nice together, with Polycarp turning to the Bishop of Rome to settle a controversy, and Anticetus, instead of “pulling rank”, as it were, adopting a conciliatory, and even submissive attitude toward Polycarp in the interest of maintaining harmony and unity in the Church.
Clearly an indication that Peter wore the pants in that group. :rolleyes:
Where are you deriving this conclusion from? If a consensus couldn’t be reached, they’d keep going until they did.
Thus the emphasis on the Ecumenical Councils.
If Christ wants unity, He will make His will known. Which do you think would best show that God’s Will is made manifest: many people coming to the same conclusion, or one person coming to his conclusion?
How exactly does this support your claim that Rome never accepted heresy?
Have you ever been inside a Roman Catholic Church? They don’t follow the same conventions. Now, those conventions were imposed especially to ensure that specific theological points are made. Since the nonconventional RC iconography is acceptable to the Byzantine Catholics, they’re not holding to the convention for doctrinal reasons but merely as a tradition.
** I already told you, I don’t know. Ask a Latin Rite Catholic.
What do you think the Orthodox claim the Papacy is?
** No. The Byzantine Catholic Church would have to reject the usurped authority of Rome and break its relationship with Roman Catholicism.
** So it’s not a heresy to claim that the Pope has no special authority? I’m sure the Orthodox will be relieved.
Not that it would matter anyway. They wouldn’t care about being excommunicated, since the Pope has no authority to make such an action in their eyes.
Actually, they did. The only difference was that the heretical stances hadn’t been solidified yet.
**
[/quote]
You haven’t caught me in a lie. You’ve caught a doctrinal error made by a congregation. That is not the Orthodox Cathechism – which you would have realized if you’d done more searching.
Did you read the site I linked to? The Orthodox do not believe that people are guilty of the Original Sin. There was an original sin (note the lowercase), but sin is not passed on from one generation to the next.
That’s what “Original Sin” means: inherited guilt from the first sin. The Orthodox reject categorically the idea that everyone is automatically subject to sin. It’s the consequences of the first sin that affect the entire world, not the sin itself.
The Orthodox consider the RCC’s teachings on this matter to be heretical. Tell me – if the Byzantine Catholics are virtually identical to the Orthodox except for “being in communion with Rome”, why do they continue to associate with the RCC?
** Precisely, which is why your beliefs are incompatible with Orthodox teachings.
TVAA, since it has become obvious to me and to most folks who are following this thread that you reply to posts without actually having read them, and that your arguments consist primarily of nit-picking over differences in terminology and/or word usage rather than over actual doctrine or belief and saying “It’s heretical because I/we/whoever says it’s heretical”, with no evidence to back your statements, while deliberately ignoring evidence contrary to your views, I have decided that I’m not going to argue with you anymore.
Actually, IINM, I do believe that there were a few Popes who professed a belief in Arianism, but it was never made official. I could be wrong, however.
I’m going with Captain Amazing-both churches developed simultaneously, and eventually just branched off of each other.
Dogface, could you be anymore insulting? You ARE acting like the Jack Chick of Orthodoxy.
What do you mean, I have no evidence to back my statements?
Those beliefs are heretical as far as the Orthodox are concerned. What “evidence” would you like me to present indicating that actually is their position?
There are countless places on the web where Orthodox theologians explain the reasons why they do not recognize the Roman Catholic Church as valid. You do not seem to have sought them out – in fact, you ignore them when they’re pointed out to you.
You point to a misleading and inaccurate statement on the website of a church and immediately conclude that I am a liar?!
This demonstrates three important facts:
You didn’t do more than a cursory search on the subject, or you would have come across several dozen Orthodox doctrinal discussions that contradict that website’s statements, including a FAQ of the Orthodox Church in America that actually mentions said erroneous website,
You are not in any way familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Anyone who had examined even the most elemental aspects of its doctrine would be aware that the Orthodox do not subscribe to the idea of Original Sin as taught by the RCC. Guilt is not transmitted, but the effects of sin affect the entire world. And,
You do not comprehend the most basic issues dividing the Church today. Modern Catholics are taught that the RCC’s teachings are those described in specific decisions – anything else are merely things that were or are taught in the Church, not by it. The Orthodox are taught that everything taught in the Church is taught by it, and everything taught by it is in it. They do not consider their dissent to be “nit-picking over differences in terminology and/or word usage”.
You do not understand the objections I have made, and you have presented no evidence that contradicts them. The Church functionally split quite some time before the Schism. The business with the filoque wasn’t only about the altering of the doctrine surrounding the Trinity, but that the Pope claimed the authority to make such a change without the Ecumenical Councils. As far as the Eastern Church was concerned, that was the final denial of the unity of the Church.
I strongly doubt that you possess any serious knowledge of Orthodoxy; I suspect that you’re merely repeating things you’ve been told about it. You are welcome to whatever beliefs you may have, but your claims about the other branches of Christian belief are inaccurate at best.
Go out, read some books, webpages, and periodicals. I encourage you to speak with RCC and Orthodox theologians in order to better understand their relative claims and positions. And until you do, I suggest you remain silent. This thread has already been irredeemably corrupted by your willingness to purvey ignorance.
TVAA, since you are the one making the assertations of heresy, I submit that it is your responsibility to research the Orthodox side and post your citations here, not simply suggest that I go out and do research. I posted citations for my arguments, all you did was scream “heresy” without citing any sources. It is your responsibility to back your own statements. Remember, you and Dogface are the ones who hijacked the thread.
Also, the website I linked to in no way stated that that Orthodox belief held that mankind inherits guilt due to Original Sin. The author’s mistake not giving out wrong teaching, it was poor choice of words, and he admitted as much as quoted on the site you linked to. He stated that he should have said the consequenses of Original Sin were hereditary. The mis-phrasing led to a misunderstandingj of what he intended to say. Yet you persist in stating that I and my sources claim the Orthodox believe in inherited guilt. I said no such thing, and neither did the Archbishop. I have already pointed this out to you, and yet you persist in your claims. The first time, it was safe to say you made an honest mistake, but to persist when the mistake has been pointed out to you brings it to the level of a lie.
Also, my issue isn’t with Orthodox teachings, it is with your accusations and claims of heresy on the part of the Catholic Church, which you, in this thread, have provided no citations for. All you say is, “It’s heresy because the Orthodox Church says so,” but you have not posted a single quotation from an Orthodox theologian, only a links to a couple of brief articles which did little to support your position. If anything, all they did was point up the fact that there is very little difference between Byzantine Catholic belief and Orthodox belief. The devil is in the details, you might say.
Also, most of your quarrel seems to be with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. I am Byzantine Catholic, in case you didn’t get that from the thread title. The purpose of this thread is to educate on Byzantine Catholic belief, not on Latin belief. I have pointed this out to you, and yet you choose to attack me on the basis of Latin belief. If I know little about Orthodox belief, I know even less about what the Latin Rite teaches (something on the order of the Latin Catholics knowing very little about, or even being unaware of the existance of, the Eastern Rites of the Church). Your arguments seem more along the lines of Eastern vs. Latin mindset, and thinking, different perspectives on the doctrines rather than the doctrines themselves, and since I follow the Eastern way of thinking, your quarrel is not with me. I told you already, if you have a quarrel with the Latins, start a new thread and take it up with the Latins. Leave me out of it. Yet you chose to ignore my request.
If I don’t understand your objections, it’s because you refuse to state them in an understandable manner. Screaming “heresy” does not constitute reasoned argument. It’s just screaming. Also, I did present plenty of evidence to back my position, you simply choose to ignore it and state that it is not evidence.
The only major differences I can see between the Catholics and the Orthodox are
The belief in Papal Primacy (which the Catholic Church sees as a simple refusal on the Orthodox part to submit to the authority of the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ set up as his Vicar on Earth) I presented both Scriptural and historical evidence to support my position. All you did was state that it was heretical, without providing any evidence to support your position.
The Immaculate Conception, which the Orthodox don’t believe in. And again, I don’t see this as an irreconciliable difference. The only reason you do is because you don’t want to play nice with the Catholics.
Also, I do in fact sometimes surf Orthodox websites. I have a wonderful time getting the Orthodox perspectives on various doctrines- and there do seem to be different schools of Orthodox thought on many of them, including the sinlessness of Mary- some hold that she was free from actual sin, if not Original Sin, and therefore sinless, others seem to hold that she did, on at least one occasion, sin. I’ve also seen a couple of different schools of thought on what Catholics call Purgatory. It seems to be an in-house debate, much as there are different schools of thought within the Latin Church on various Church teachings.
I also swipe the occasional Orthodox prayer for use in my personal devotions. To tell the truth, although I accept the authority of the Pope and the formally defined dogmas of the Catholic Church, (and believe me, this was an issue that I did wrestle with) spiritually and theologically, I feel more kinship to the Orthodox than with the Latin Church, which is why, though I was baptized in the Latin Rite, I ultimateluy chose to be chrismated in the Byzantine Rite.
Ok, to try to get this thread back on track, I hope you’ll accept a few questions from an Orthodox Christian who is not very familiar with the history of the Italo-Greeks.
What is the history of the Italo-Greek Byzantine rite, and what distinguishes it from the other Eastern rites of the Catholic Church? Are y’all the remnants of the Greek-speaking populations of southern Italy?
I know that in the past few centuries several of the Eastern rites have undergone Latinization, especially the Ruthenians and Maronites. Has this affected your rite at all, and if so, since Vatican II have y’all returned to traditional practices or maintained a course of Latinization?
What tradition of chant does your rite use? Byzantine, or does your rite have its own tradition?
Thanks, and I’m sorry your thread got hijacked by Dogface et al.
SInce I didn’t say that, I have no idea what you are talking about. I used the word orthodox in two senses in my post. There is an orthodox Catholic position, and an orthodox eastern Orthodox position.
Orthodoxy is a term that can refer to being correct and official as well as the name of the EOC.
Yeah, and my churhc could equally correctly be refered to as the “Orthodox Catholic Church”. Big whoop. Quit ranting, it doesn’t help you.
You’re pretty much on track there. Our church is descended ecclesiastically from the Greek-speaking people of southern Italy and of Sicily (Fr. Francis’ mother was Sicilian), although at present, the only person in the parish who is of Italo-Greek descent is Fr. Francis- actually, the Right Reverend Archimandrite Fr. Francis Vivona. What distinguishes us from the other Eastern Rites of the CC is basically 1)Liturgy- we use St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, as do a couple of the other Eastern Rites. The Syrians, Coptics, et al have their own liturgical traditions.
1)Ethnic/Cultural heritage.
**
(Thea stamps her little foot) No! No! We won’t Latinize! Never! Never! Actually, not all of the Ruthenians and Maronites have Latinized, or if they did, have returned to traditional Byzantine usages. We have a Ruthenian Byzantine parish her in Lost Wages that is very Byzantine.
The Latinization of many of the Byzantine churches was forced. Poland, for example, with some other areas of Eastern Europe, use the Latin Rite, but were originally Byzantine. This came about after the Crusaders’ sacking of Constantinople and conquest of some of the Western portions of the Byzantine Empire. In addition, here in the US of A, where we pride ourselves on religious freedom, some of the Byzantine churches have Latinized due to strong pressure from the Latins in this country. Most Byzantine parishes are situated geographically inside Latin diocese, and the Latins, not understanding Byzantine traditions or spirituality, started putting the screws to them and, er, strongly encouraged them to Latinize.
It annoys me how often, after explaining to a Latin Rite Catholic what Byzantine Catholicism is, ending up with an invite to my church if they’re curious and want to see what goes on, say, "No, thanks, I’m a traditional Catholic. In their ignorance, they act as if the Byzantine traditions are some new invention, and not actually older than the Latin tradition.
**
Byzantine.
**
Not your fault, sweetie. Thanks for the questions.
** You’ve made claims about the nature of Orthodox teaching: specifically, you said that the Byzantine Catholics were what the Orthodox would have been if they were in communion with Rome.
If you’re familiar with Orthodox teaching (as you’d have to be in order to make such a claim validly), I shouldn’t need to post cites.
If you’re not familiar with Orthodox teaching, cites would be necessary, but your claim would be invalid.
Which is it?
It is your responsibility to back your own statements as well. And you are the one who brought Orthodoxy into the picture – if you’d stuck to discussing Byzantine Catholicism, none of this would have happened.
** First of all, quit capitalizing Original Sin. When capitalized, it refers to the idea that “the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons”, that guilt is transferred to all of humanity from the first sin. As such, the Orthodox do not believe in “Original Sin”: merely in original sin. The distinction is non-trivial.
Secondly, the author of the mistaken website is NOT the same as the authors of the FAQ. Pay attention!
I have stated repeatedly that the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin. You pointed to an Orthodox website that used the term and claimed you had caught me in a lie.
The belief that death and suffering entered the world through humanity’s sin is NOT equivalent to belief in Original Sin. Yet I do not accuse you of intentionally attempting to mislead the other posters by pretending to misunderstand.
** I’m discussing the Orthodox position on these matters, and the Orthodox position is that the RCC has “fallen away from the true path”. If you oppose the claim that the Catholic Church is heretical, you DO have an issue with Orthodox teachings.
** No, I’m saying that the Orthodox Church says it’s heresy, which is quite a different point.
The links I’ve posted contain ample discussion of these points, there are volumes of discussions of the web of these matters. These points are not obscure or difficult to find – if you haven’t performed even a cursory examination of OC doctrine, don’t make claims about it.
** And you’ve claimed that Byzantine Catholicism is basically Orthodoxy in communion with Rome. That is utterly and completely incorrect from the perspective of the Orthodox.
How is your church “in communion with” Rome if you don’t even know (or care, it seems) what Rome teaches? If you know little about Orthodox belief, how dare you claim that your faith is almost the same as Orthodoxy?
** A sufficiently different perspective on a doctrine IS another doctrine. You do not follow the Eastern way of thinking – you do not even know what it is. And my quarrel is with ignorance, which in this case means my quarrel is with you.
** You haven’t understood a word that’s been said against your position, have you?
** Let’s see here. Christ “upon this rock will I build my church”: “Peter” means “rock”. Christ was making a pun – to my knowledge, this is the only joke in the New Testament. How does that lead you to the conclusion that Peter was given authority over the Church? The Orthodox position is that Christ was referring to the profession of faith Peter had just made. It’s a theme which is returned to several times, particularly in the account of St. Thomas.
[/quote]
**
Regarding the first part of your statement, you are incorrect: the Immaculate Conception refers to the idea that the Theotokos was granted special dispensation from God and preserved from sin from the moment of her conception. The Orthodox believe that everyone is born sinless, but chooses to sin; Mary never chose to sin, which is why she was chosen to bear Christ – she was the only one who could have. The two doctrines differ fundamentally in their approach to the nature of sin, God’s role in the world, and the reason May is venerable. \
Regarding the second part of your statement, that the Orthodox refuse to accept the Immaculate Conception because they “don’t want to play nice”: you’re a twit.
** First, drop “Original Sin”. It doesn’t apply here.
Secondly, there is disagreement over whether Mary’s rebuking of Christ at the Canaan wedding was a sin or not. No matter how this dispute is resolved, it doesn’t affect Mary’s sinlessness when she bore Christ.
No. “Purgatory”, as a place or process through which those unworthy of Heaven but also unworthy of Hell must pass through, does not exist in Orthodox thought.
The OCC has the same beliefs on this matter as ancient Judaism: everyone, and I mean everyone, is in the state of separation from God. It is not Hell. It is not Purgatory.
How can you accept the formally defined dogmas of the Catholic Church if you’re not familiar with its teachings?
TVAA, you’re the one who’s not paying attention. I said the author of my website as quoted on the FAQ you posted. I never said he was the author of the FAQ. I chose the wording very carefully to make sure that was clear. You are twisting what I said.
Second, when I speak of my unfamaliarity with the Latin Rite of the Church, I mean just the, the Latin Rite. Byzantine catechists make sure the catacheumen is apprised of the beliefs that are held as dogma by the entire Church. I am Byzantine. I was catechized in the Byzantine Rite, not the Latin Rite. I have only a cursory knowledge of Latin theology and terminology. So, since the majority of your argument (aside from Papal authority) seems to stem from differences in Eastern and Western religious thought, your quarrel is with the Latins, not the Byzantines. Byzantines are Eastern Christians. Oh, and it’s ludicrous to say that Eastern Catholics are not Eastern Christians because we accept the authority of Rome. We still have the same Eastern spirituality, theology, views on sin and redemption and Man’s relationship with God that the Eastern Churches have always held. The only difference is a matter of whether we accept the authority of Rome.
So, again, it’s not a difference in doctrine, but in Eastern vs. Western terminology and viewpoints.
As to original sin (there, I did it in lowercase, happy?), I have established that Byzantine Catholicism shares the Eastern Orthodox belief that the guilt of original sin is not inherited, only the consequences (the weakness or perversion of human nature, the inclination to actual sin), so what did you do? Start screaming about capitalization, as though a couple of capital letters constituted a huge doctrinal difference.
**
Oooh, resorting to name-calling, I see. That will help your position a lot.In case you didn’t notice (as you obviously didn’t notice the title of this thread), this forum is called Great Debates, not the BBQ pit. Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I didn’t say that the Orthodox refuse to accept the Immaculate Conception because they don’t want to play nice. I said that I don’t think that this doctrinal difference was irreconciliable, and the Orthodox do think it’s irreconciliable because they don’t want to play nice. There is a difference.
As to papal authority, I presented my evidence in favor of it, you presented no evidence from the Orthodox perspective to counter it. You just kept screaming “heresy”. If you have evidence from the Orthodox perspective that this is a heretical belief, post it in this thread. Don’t just say, “It’s heretical because the Orthodox believe it’s heretical, and the Orthodox believe it’s heretical because it’s heretical.” That’s circular logic. Make your case. You’re the one who came into this thread looking for a fight. It’s up to you to support your own positon.
From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox refusal to accept Papal authority amounts to nothing more than disobedience and schism.
Also, if Christ’s statement “flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven… thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Chuch… I will give you the keys to the Kingdom… and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” is a pun, a mere joke…
it isn’t funny.
As for your claim that my statement that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy would be if the Orthodox were still in communion with Rome is in error…
Since my church was never in schism with Rome, and, aside from a particular Marian doctrine and differences in belief about how the soul of the believer is prepared for entry into Heaven after death, (which, again, is an issue of terminology and Eastern/Western thought, not a fundamental doctrinal difference, and as a Byzantine, I subscribe to the Eastern view- I just use the Latin term as a matter of linguistic convenience) the only real difference between the Byzantine Catholics is the acceptance of Papal authority. The reason that the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is because they don’t accept it.
Which means that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy woud be if the Eastern Orthodox were in communion with Rome.