The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
matthewleebrown14
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

catholic church is what it says, not what orthodox says

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,375 times Debate No: 5071
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i was busy and apologize for not finishing that debate. hopefully i will this time. here is a good response to start with:

I will answer your objections. But first, I submit to you a challenge. If the CC is not true,,, then surely it has contradicted itself in its official teaching. I have not found this to be the case. (I have questions regarding Extra… Nulla, "outside the catholic church" etc)
If the following stuff is debatable, I'd think something could be found as per that challenge. If someone can claim infallibility and reamin unscathed by error for over 2000 years, something must be good going on.

---------"Supreme pontiff". You didn't cite your arguments from your old thread, but I took to liberty to boil it down:

"WHOEVER WOULD CALL HIMSELF SOLE BISHOP EXALTETH HIMSELF ABOVE OTHERS.""

the pope doesn't want to act as if he is the sole bishop, or if he is the end all be all, or that the other bishops don't have any authority. They have authority in as far as subject to the pope.

" Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

He's saying it himself…. It's all about vanity and not depreciating the dignity that is worth the bishop. He acts as if he's got authority in the whole of the church. I don't deny the argument doesn't have merit, but it's not definitive.

---------[The pope is not the head in the infallible sense, here is proof:]"The Orthodox church maintains the the belief that every bishop is the head of his particualar church as. Canon VI, First Ecumenical Council, asserts that the Bishop of Rome (now days called the pope) is no exception to this rule."
"Motivated by the same aim, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome; rightfully judging that the city (Constantinople), being honored by a monarchy and a senate, and equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges, should be magnified also, as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her."[xxxiv]

Pope leo never authorized that canon. His papal delegates weren't there.
Many historians use Canon 28 as proof OF papal primacy in the infallible sense. Rome was given priority as always,,,, the only thing that could be said is that Constantinople would be second, not earth shattering.
That people would respect his opinion in the matter is showing.
Those who made that cannon apologized for their taking so much latitude to the pope.
That people might use it against him,,, is merely earthly people dissenting something they shouldn't do.
Here is a good analysis of the Catholic claim with more details:
http://www.phatmass.com...
(I strongly recommend that website if you want to have a good debate with catholics. I have not found a better site at least in terms of accessibility than that one.)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

----------"When Jesus said these words in Matthew 16:18-19 "I will build my church", the word build is a verb in the future tense which refers to the establishment of the church."I will build" means that new members would be added to the present church, with Peter and his confession being only the first "rock" in the building of the Church."

Peter could be the rock, and other faiths will be built on his initial confesion. It doesn't stop papal infallibility from being true. Jesus all agree is the chief cornerstone,,, but even you concede that Peter is a rock, so that's an important point, but not definitive against the pope.

--------------"The Orthodox church holds strong by the original creed established at the first council of Nicaea. This was one of the dissapointed steps that rome took into progressiveness."

Essentially to my understanding,,, the actual meaning, the substance, of the creeds have not been changed. They just were disputing semantics.
Even if the pope put it in the old way on his tablets,,, that's not teaching something of substance different than was taguth. And at any rate,,,, if it was something personal like tablets for himself,,, he surely wasn't teaching the whole church and couldn't contradict an official teaching.

-----------------"Another prgressive view is purgatory. The official teaching of this theory wasn't established until the council of lyons (1274) and the council of florance (1439). Why so late?"
A common issue is the lateness of a doctrine. The common response which I assume to be the case here.. is that it wasn't defined because it didn't need to be. It was just understood etc. Everything isn't defined. Often, the fact it took a long time to be defined, means it was so orthodox until someone challenged it.

It doesn't matter if it was started by the pope as you mention. The substance of purgatory doesn't look to be seriously disputed by the orthodox. They agree with a state at least similar to pugatory. The idea of only "temporal punishment" being forgiven I can see as limiting,,, cause it seems like more should occur. But, it's totally feasible that if you die in grace,,, the only thing that needs fixed is your attachment to sin. If I stop smoking, of have to fix something I broke, I suffer a loss.
Here is scripture which I find hard to say purgatory does not exist:
QUOTE
1 corinthians 3
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.

Luke 12:41-48 [41] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

how do you get blows in heaven, as per the second verse?
how do you suffer a loss and get purified by fire in heaven as per the first verse?
an idea of purgatory argument, makes the most sense.
matthewleebrown14

Con

I guess the point i will try to make in this debate is once again the abandoning of holy tradition since the idea of a supreme pontiff came in place. The schism about the Bishop of Rome is the biggest and most crucial schism between eastern and western christians (roman catholic, eastern orthodox).

I guess i will begin by explaining what the orthodox church actually believes about the bishop of rome.

dairygirl, i'm not sure but i think you may be confused about what the Orthodox church actually believes regarding peter and the bishop of rome. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

The Orthodox church does recognize a role given to the bishop of rome, but what authority does that role give him? The orthodox church looks at the bishop of rome as the FIRST among EQUALS. Being the bishop of rome is a role of honor and respect. Obviously the bishop or rome had a more in depth role in the church due to rome being the largest of all christian communities at the time, but does this give the bishop of rome authority over the other bishops? Absolutely not and it is absurd to think so! The bishop of rome had no power to interfere with the other eastern bishops unless the other bishops abandoned christian teaching in which the eastern bishops could also do the same to the bishop of rome, and did! The bishop of rome had a primacy of honor but not a primacy of authority. The best anaology i ever heard about this issue is the captain on a basketball team. The captain (bishop of rome) deffinitely has a position of honor but does not have more of a position then the other four players (eastern bishops) nor does he have authority over the other four players. Only the coach (God) can rule the whole team.

This topic will probably be the primary topic of this debate due to the abandoning of tradition caused by the pope

The innovations of the papacy includes:
the filioque, consecration of the holy gifts, baptism by sprinkling,a eucharist of unleavened wafers, lay participation in the mystery of communion, purgatory, the immaculate conception,statues, papal supremecy,clerical celibacy, the gregorian calendar, and holy unction.

I hope to refute all of these innovations and prove that the Orthodox church is the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

I hate to cite from my previous debate about the bishop of rome but there are quotes in that debate that i want to bring into light.

The roman Catholic church claims that papal supremacy has existed sinced ancient times but obviously Greogory (the bishop of rome) didn't think so.

"I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

Does the catholic church not beleive that the pope is the universal ruler? Obviously they do, so are they the precursors of the anti-christ? I wouldn't dare to give them such a title but that quote above would give me suspicions. Another point that i would like to make about this quote is how can you "raise yourself above others" without thinking that you had authority over them? Obviously Gregory wanted to drive in the point that no bishop had authority over the other. The quote is so simple and clear.

My opponent tried to refuted the quote below that i used in my previous debate.

" Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

In regards to this quote, my oppenent stated:
"He acts as if he's got authority in the whole of the church."

I'm open to new ways of looking at things, but in this whole entire quote, how can you believe that he was acting out of authority in this quote? He wanted to demonstrate his humility not his authority! The reason why he wrote this letter was to refute schisms that the bishop of rome had more authority then the other bishops. Would it make sense to think that gregory had authority over the other bishops after he just wrote this letter to the bishop of alexandria saying in so many words that he was equal to him? Not at all.

It's undeniable that the Roman Catholic church believes in a universal bishop but do they take into consideration this other quote by gregory?

"It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall"

Even catholic theologians will admit that the papacy has changed extremely as time progressed. The primacy of rome was an affect of rome's political state in the world.

I will again quote from my previous debate. Catholic theologian W. Devries states: " throughout the first ten centries, Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilage."

avery dulles claims that the papacy is a historical accident stating: "The strong centralization in modern catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of ROME with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal orginization"

It is undeniable that the papacy as it exists now is of very late origin.

St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian")

Does this include that the bishop of rome cannot lord over the other bishops and have authority over them? Ofcourse it does!

St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."

St. Jerome hit it right on the head. All of the bishops are of the same worth and are the self governers of their territories and does not have authority over the other bishops, the bishop of rome is NO exception.

The Counsil of NIcea (325 a.d.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. (Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles")

more next round...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i am aware that orthodox say first amoung equals, ie primacy.

"For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

it does't seem like you should be continally pointing to this quote. cause, the fact he says "sole" kinda make this quote look dubious as to saying primacy only. i mean, it makes your point,, but it's completly argumentative.
in fact, that quote could be said to what greg's real feelings are on the matter, as per even even that longer "wounds charity" quote about humility... ie, it's the idea of being sole bishop that's disturbing, or exulting onesulf beyond what they should. it doesn't mean he's not the prime one in an infallible sense.
here is even a protestant scholar who said greg thought he was it, arguably beyond mere primacy:
"In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever" (Dudden, I, 475).

i think more specifics really need looked into, to deermine what the pope allowed others to disagree or to be independant on, or what the case was. but what you show isn't very definitive.

"He wanted to demonstrate his humility not his authority!"
(look at taht wounds charity quote)

that's what you said. i think you meant, he wanted to demonstrate his authority, not his humility. (or unless you meant a certain type of authrity or something) cause that's what a catholic would say... ie, he merely wanted to demonstrate the proper himility, and respect other bishops discretion.
you never really responed to the idea i mentioned,,, of a bishop is equal to the pope on issues that are not defined or that do not conflict withe pope. they have authority insofar as the pope says something official.

you have a valid point, but it's not explicitly the case. you're doing what you claim catholics do by reading into primacy quotes at catholic.com, cause you reading into this, as it's not explicit. in fact, the way you're reading it, could be also read as that the roman bishop isn't even primacy either. (of course, that's obivously not the case given other quotes,,, but my point is in pointing out how you're interpreting this one quote to be a little too much, necessarily)

one thing about all those innovations you point to.... priests marrying etc,,, they're just innovations on something that can be changed, or would logically flow and aren't innovations in a sense of substnative change. ie, no one disputes that priests marrying is simply discimpline, not doctrine, and that that isn't an official teaching and can change. if people prayed to teh dead back in the day.. then purgatory naming is only a formality of what already eixsted. (you might dispute the specifics, but the point is that generally it already existed) kinda like, cahtolics kneel to the eucharist (i'm not catholic, only grew up one, but am taking their postion for information sake), cause they see it as a logical conclusion to saying the real prescence exists. orthodox remains silent on when the change occurs, so they don't kneel. this exemplifies the situation,,, they do things the old fashioned way, but that doesn't mean the new ways are wrong if nothing substnative is being changed.
-also, it's ironic... the person you point to as showning how the orthodox church is correct in the authority issue, ie gregory,,, is the same pope who definied purgatory. (so says wikipedia) just ironic i mean. an orthodox pope, by your perspective, definiting something you claim as questionable. i know you're not probably bound, but it's ironic.

this is important which i'd like a response to: it seems like, at most, the quots don't prove what you say they do. and at least, it's debatable. if it's debatable, it'd seem you could show a clear contradiction in an official teaching, as my initial challenge to you. you did not do that. (unless you think the innovations accomplish that,,, but i don't think hey do, and this debate then really should concentrate on those.... is this what you're intending?)

in addition to that point about infallibility and contradictions... what if the orthodox decided to again follow the pope? and then the pope said something... and then the other churches disagreed? i am not sure if there's ever been that much dissension from what the pope says as fiinal in the preschism church. that proves that there was something to it. if you started dissenting if the orthocox and pope got together again,,, that's something novel. i mean,,, there was that canon 28, from chalcedon,,,, but, they listend to the pope when he denied it, etc, i believe. or at least many did etc, and apologized to him etc. that canon wasn't approved by the pope, so it wasn't taken as final, to my understanding.
it starts to be a lot to expect,, that you'd say they followed hm for all that time,,,, simply out of a primacy,,, and never dissented.

as to the lack of clear expression of authrity. you have clement, if you look at catholic.com, and others who are pretty forceful. at least, enough, that, it could be what the CC teaches but not super explicity on hte matter. take for example the reasoning of protesnt to catholic notable scholar, cardinal newman. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.
the main reason he converted though, was the idea that the churches never really dissented from teh CC,,, it's the way things always were, and that the structure of the CC was pope as head... and even if pope was head was only primacy, then even that structure was broken at the schism etc. it's not being ran according to the way it should. (i mean, i realie the argument that the way it should be,,, is off, cause of the CC,,, but i'm just pointing out this evidence as it is)

here's an idea maybe you could respond to, i often heard prots say: the churches in the early church sought the answers of the pope,,, even though john the apostle was still alive and closer. do you think they were only doing that to respect the primacy thing?
matthewleebrown14

Con

ok,

your last argument is irrelevent to what i am trying to prove.

#1 you said in your last argument:

"here's an idea maybe you could respond to, i often heard prots say: the churches in the early church sought the answers of the pope,,, even though john the apostle was still alive and closer. do you think they were only doing that to respect the primacy thing?"

Once again, the orthodox church recognized that the bishop of rome was the bishop of most influence. Is it possible that the people in the early church sought the opinion of the bishop of rome more so then the opinions of the eastern bishops? possibly so. However, where does authority tie into this?

it's obvious that the bishop of rome had more influence, rome was the "headquarters" of christianity at the time, but the authority of the bishop of rome didn't exceed that of the other eastern bishops.

my oppenent stated:
"you never really responed to the idea i mentioned,,, of a bishop is equal to the pope on issues that are not defined or that do not conflict withe pope. they have authority insofar as the pope says something official."

I can see my oppenent's point but why would the eastern bishops question defined beliefs? Also, these so called defined beliefs were beleifs that were establshed by Jesus and the new testament apostles, the bishop of rome along with the other eastern bishop's responisibility was to uphold these defined beliefs. However attacks on the trinity were brought to the table by certain eastern groups but were rejected instantly by both the bishop of rome and the eastern bishops..

Speaking of defined beliefs,i have a question. Was the so called "fact" that the bishop of rome had authority over all bishops a defined fact? I would hardly think so! So many church fathers argued over this topic, it is infair and unclear to go out on a limb and say that rome had universal authority over other apostolic seas.

my opponent also stated

"this is important which i'd like a response to: it seems like, at most, the quots don't prove what you say they do. and at least, it's debatable. if it's debatable, it'd seem you could show a clear contradiction in an official teaching, as my initial challenge to you. you did not do that. (unless you think the innovations accomplish that,,, but i don't think hey do, and this debate then really should concentrate on those.... is this what you're intending?)"

Regarding the quotes, yes, the quotes can be left for interpretation, which is the point that my last oponent made in my previous debate. I'll say once again, make sure these quotes call upon interpretation. Lets do the process of illimination. When you read Gregory's letter to the bishop of alexandria, would you at first think that hes demonstrating his authority or demonstrating his equality to the bishop of alexandria? Call me ignorant, but i would say that hes demonstrating his equality. Dairygirl, do you believe that hes demonstrating his authority BY demonstrating his equality? I'm just not sure where you stand on this letter to the bishop of alexandria.

I was actually hoping to get a response from my opponent to this:

The Consil of Nicea (325 a.d.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. (Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles")

This is evidance in itself that in the early church, all regional bishops were equal and had NO POWER to interfere with other bishops.

I was also dissapointed to see that my opponent didn't respond to the catholic theologians remarks.
The fact of the matter is, all bishops were equal in the early church but due to rome's progressive power and influence, this also boosted the power of the bishop of rome thus causing schism between the church fathers. The idea that the bishop of rome had unversal power was a direct result of rome's political influence.

If you read the new testament, particularly acts and early church writtings, you will never find peter ever demonstrating his authority over the other apostles. He had no such authority! Infact, st. ignatius of antioch was appointed by both peter and paul to be the bishop of antioch

St. Ambrose of Milan: "He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men...." [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34].

An interesting quote from st. ambrose concertning st. peter, demonstrating peter's equality.

St. John Chrysostom has not recognized in the Church any dignity superior to the apostolate in general.

"Of all spiritual magistratures," he says, "the greatest is the apostolate. How do we know this? Because the apostle precedes all others. As the consul is the first of civil magistrates, so is the apostle the first of spiritual magistrates. St. Paul himself, when he enumerates these dignities, places at their head the prerogatives of the apostolate. What does he say? 'And God has set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers.' Do you observe the summit of these dignities? Do you mark that the apostle is at the apex of the hierarchy–no one before, none above him. For he says: 'First, apostles.' And not only is the apostolate the first of all dignities, but also the root and foundation thereof." [Homily upon the Utility of Reading Holy Scripture; cited in Abbe Guettee, The Papacy.]

St. Jerome represents St. Paul as saying: "I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry.""[St. Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, cited Abbe Guettee, The Papacy; clearly, if inferior in nothing (in nullo), then equal in every thing.]

I never really intended for this debate to be solely on the issue of papal sumpremacy but this issue is pretty much the biggest cause of schism between the east and west.

You can even see the inconsistency within the roman catholic church. Catholic theologians of this day try to reform and "downplay" obnoxious claims to the pope.

For example:
"The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God...Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions...As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms...The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."

- From a Papally-endorsed encyclopedia: Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica ("Handy Canonical, Juridical, Moral, Theological, Ascetical, Polemical, Rubrical, Historical Library"), vol. 5, "Papa (Pope)" article 2 [see also J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin] (#1, 13, 18, & 30).

"The pope can do all things God can do."

- Nicolaus de Tudeschis [1386-1445],
famous Benedictine canonist and abbot,
in "Commentaria" (lvi, 34)r

A good number of Catholic theologians are embarressed of these obnoxious claims, thus the reason they try to reform and "downplay" them.

If my oppenent can prove that the bishop of rome had authority rather then influence over the other eastern bishops, i myself will consider joining the roman catholic church......until then, i will remain an eastern orthodox christian....
good luck to my opponent
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
matthewleebrown14

Con

It's a shame that the round was forfeited, this would of been a very good debate, i was enjoying it....oh well.

I guess i'll make a few more points before i conclude...

once again in regards to the bishop of rome.....

St. Cyprian of Carthage: "To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power..."(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)

does this quote call upon interpretation? What other interpretation can this quote have? This quote said directly that the disciple peter had no more authority then the other disciples....

St. Isidore of Seville: "The other Apostles were made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power."[De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782].......Any other interpretations? I doubt it.....

There are other issues that slightly separate the Catholic church from the eastern orthodox church but once again i'm goign to save the info for someone who is actually willing to finish a debate....

God Bless all who reads.....
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
you are* wow i'm on a role. haha once again, sorry
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
I would like to apologize for several incorrectly spelled words, i guess you don't pay attention when your typing fast.
Posted by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
before i take this debate, i would like to know something first. Is this debate going to be about the true church or the schism about the bishop of rome? Pretty much all western and eastern schisms has risen from this topic.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JakeRoss 8 years ago
JakeRoss
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
dairygirl4u2cmatthewleebrown14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03