Debunking Top 5 Papal Memes: 1st Millenium

[@lhinton281]

I just read through the Sacra, Acta, Canons, etc of Nicea 2. That Greek version is telling. Rome as the Church of Peter and Paul, the Sovwreigns should embrace their (Peter and Paul’s) Vicar. Definitely honor for the most holy Pope of Rome. While Pope Hadrian has the “Chief Priesthood”, Constantine and Irene had to press the dignity of the chief priesthood on Tarasius. Also, Basil of Ancyra’s desire in confessing the faith was to unite to Catholic Church, to Hadrian the Pope of Old Rome, to Tarasius blessed Patriarch, to Apostolic sees, etc. Definitely about the Church of Jesus upholding the Faith

[@JesGabBreMar]

BTW if one read Pope Agatho's letter in detail it was clear that he didn't aim at doing a statement of "infallibility" with doctrinal precision, it was rather a theologoumenon. He basically was showing the emperor his credentials and the track record of Rome to give assurance that what he is about to read is Apostolic doctrine handed down. After the famous quote he went on to say that he could fail to follow the example of his predecessors and could teach error in the exercise of his office, and he even quoted Galatians 1:8 with regards to himself.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Did he really? Might a Catholic apologist be able to say that they simply don't claim that popes are always infallible but only ex cathedra? I'd be interested in reading exactly what he said. I started reading it ages ago when I was discerning between EO and RC but the fact that the letter required approval by the council satisfied me against the RC argument and I never finished.

[@hxplxss1835]

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Ex Cathedra is such a cop out. Why would a pope deny the very distinction of infallibility if he possesses it? It's ridiculous.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

I want to put some good Roman Catholic counterarguments, and offer brief responses: 1. "The Formula of Hormisdas did not have various letters." This argument is a half truth. We contain two "Maronite" (they are monastics who were spiritual sons of St Maron, they did not call themselves this at this point in history) texts that appear to be quoting portions of "the Formula of Hormisdas." Indeed, the translator of these letters appears to believe they were in response to a letter writing campaign from St Pope Hormisdas including the formula. Father Puller treats these letters as such, which is what I based my argument upon. However, I believe the Roman Catholics make a good point by saying that "*the* formula of hormisdas" is in reference to specifically what those out of communion with Rome had to sign. The Maronites were already in communion. So, a sort of apples/oranges thing. I think this is a fair rejoinder. However, it should be pointed out there is one crucial flaw in the preceding argument. The Bishops of Spain were sent the Formula of Hormisdas in 517 AD (the same year as the Maronites). And I have read the Spanish formula--it's pretty much the same exact thing. It is in Fortescue's book. We also know of two differen formula from 515 AD mentioned in Fr Puller's book. So, while I cannot verify the two from 515 AD because I have not read them, I *have* read the one from 517 AD sent to Spain. Hence, the Maronite letter (containing all of the same details without the Papal prerogatives) is most likely an altered formula. It'd be strange for Hormisdfas to be sending these things around since 515 AD, having Bishops in communion with him signing it (such as the Spanish Bishops, the Scythians, and some others in Illyricum) but the Maronite letter, containing all the same excommunications and similar references to the see of Peter, would *not* be another one of these formulas--especially considering it has dozens or over a hundred signatures--typical of all of the formulas (whose purpose was to be signed). So, I am fairly confident that Letters 139/140 from the Maronites are an altered formula, RC apologists really bungle things by not admitting this. Edward Denny cites three letters in the Latin Avellana that show subsequent subscriptions to the formula were similarly altered. I have looked at these letters myself and have noticed that the RC/Anglican apologists seem to draw opposite conclusions from their content. (They appear to vaguely allow for people to reenter communion as long as they accept Chalcedon, with no mention whatsoever of Papal prerogatives). RCs will make an argument from silence that this does not mean the Papal prerogatives became negotiable. Anglicans/Orthodox may overstate the significance of these documents. I am having a RC priest friend of mine look into the Latin (he was educated in Rome) and will make a future video where I state the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. I am suspecting Denny is coming on too strong, which means, I am coming on too strong in this video on that point. In any event, the preceding does not address Denny's argument about the Greek version of the formula in 869-870. In my article "the Formula of Hormisdas Sham" I make mention that I have had issues with the footnote. Depending upon what I see in the Latin of the letters of another Denny footnote, I may be more critical of a subsequent footnote of his that speaks of the Greek version. In the meantime, I have made minor edits in my article (which I would have wrote much differently if I think Google would have placed it number one) to reflect some of the above. orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/02/04/the-formula-of-hormisdas-sham/ The edits will probably screw with the Google AI and knock it down. 2. "The dating of Easter was not a debate over the Saturday-observance from the Second Century, but it was a debate over the adoption of the Julian calendar." This is also a half truth, but perhaps more than that. If one wants to get lost in the weeds, here are some primary sources on the topic I lifted from a reply of mine on Facebook: We know for a fact that there were still Saturday-observers and that scholarship thinks that this is a continuous string of people, being that they are all in Asia Minor. St John Chrysostom and Saint Epiphanius wrote against Quartodecimanism. Here are primary sources specifically about what occurred in Nicea: Saint Athanasius in De Synodis (par 5): As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were out of order in celebrating the Feast, and *kept Easter with the Jews* ; ...This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day." Nicea's synodical letter, in the 12th paragraph, also speaks the same: "We also have good news for you that we have harmonized our opinions on the subject of the most holy feast of Easter, which has been happily settled through your prayers. *All* the brothers in the east who have previously kept this festival *when the Jews did* have agreed with the Romans, with us, and with all of you who have kept Easter with us from the beginning, to follow the same custom as we. " In Constantine's Letter to Egypt, in the 3rd paragraph, he says the same: "it seemed very unworthy for us to keep this most sacred feast *following the custom of the Jews*, a people who have soiled their hands in a most terrible outrage, and have thus polluted their souls, and are now deservedly blind. " Later in the letter, Constantine writes, "Surely we should never allow Easter to be kept twice in one and the same year!" (par 6) Surely, this does mean that the issue was the Julian calendar. However, it does not say it was merely the Julian calendar and no one was doing the Saturday observance. So, from the primary sources, we simply do not see the evidence that 'keeping the custom of the Jews" means *merely* the use of their calendar.

[@that_sun_guy6527]

U Juju Nikki J J Jk In In My J In J J Jon Jon J J J In J J J J Jk J My J J J J You J J J J J Jon Jku J J J J J J J J J J Joni J Jk In Jon Jk J J J J J My J J J J J J J J Juju Juju Jon Just J My Jk J Jķjķj J J In Juju Juju Jkjjjj J J J My J Jkujkujujjjujjjju Juju Juju I’m ogoingoiooooooooo😅o😅oo😅ooooo😅oooo😅o😅oo😅o😅ooooooo😅oooooo

[@that_sun_guy6527]

I’m

[@adolphCat]

I argue a lot simpler on this issue than you do, I point out that Rome cannot have immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church since it is not the oldest Patriarchate as both Jerusalem and Antioch are older. This being the case how is it possible that all Churches receive their legitimacy through the Roman Patriarchate? My argument can be based entirely on the book of Acts and other parts of the New Testament thus dispensing with disputed histories. Simple arguments are always best as it is more difficult to disagree with them. What your doing is good as well but it requires a good memory and the confidence needed to by pass the objections of the Papists. For people with less mastery over historical data a simpler argument is needed. Something easier to remember and more difficult to dispute is needed. No Christian can disagree with the Scripture, and we all have a copy of the Bible in our homes so a Biblical based argument is best.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

The weakness is that hagiographies teach that the death sights of saints determine where the spiritual authority of an apostle resides. For example, Cyprus' autonomy is traditionally dependent upon finding St Barnabas' relics.

[@MarcusBarnabassisSystersSonne]

Although hagiographies are important and indicate a certain lineage of Christian tradition (in regard to primacy) the commentor's point regarding Scripture and ancient Christian primacy (i.e. even before the first hagiographical account as St Peter, for example, had probably not yet reposed in Rome) should be considered as more ancient and true. In other words, hagiographical traditions came after the more ancient "traditions" of the Church as it grew out of Jerusalem and Antioch. I love your video, btw! It is an awesome presentation. Just wanted to chime in here on roman papal hysteria. Peace☦️

[@atlproductions216]

The papist simply would respond by saying that Peter was the chief of the apostles, their legitimacy came through communion with him. Therefore, after his death, his successor would continue to reign from his chair in Rome. Petrine primacy doesn’t depend on how ancient the see of Rome is, rather it depends on succession of Peter. Roman primacy exist only because it is in succession of Peter where the blessed disciple was martyred, nothing to to do with how long it took to be founded. As spoke by the Roman legates at the 3rd session of the council of Chalcedon “Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith”.

[@esoterico7750]

@@atlproductions216 the real question is how an office goes from being attached to a person to being attached to a jurisdiction.

[@atlproductions216]

@@esoterico7750 the office of the person of Peter is vacant at the time of his death. Thus his successor sits on his chair filling his spot. This is how jurisdiction is passed from the person of Peter onto his successor.

[@CancerousCosmic]

Cameron Riecker put out a video today using the same memes here😂

[@ayonio5723]

Great stuff! Thanks for uploading!

[@traditionallenses]

I agree with your assument of Agatho’s letter but a question remains for me, what about the claims of indefectability that Agatho attributes to his successors in saying that the apostolic see will endure till the end

[@hxplxss1835]

He was wrong lol

[@traditionallenses]

@@hxplxss1835 so true king. Since I made that post I’ve learned that the papist 8th ecumenical council claims none of the patriarchs will defect and also that the same language is used for the emperor so so much for the papist kill shot

[@CPATuttle]

Is there an argument FOR Orthodox theology that Jesus set up plurality voting to an even number (12) Apostles equal authority. And the succession of bishops with the true authority goes where based on what?

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

No. Acts 15 delineates consensus and this is how the councils functioned.

[@t.d6379]

Lil Orthobros are so cute x

[@TruthBeTold7]

John Collorafi said Craig is a self-styled Eastern Orthodox apologist. Craig doesn't know what he is talking about. He hasn't read the primary sources. I am working on uploading John's response to Craig's bogus article on the Formula of Pope Hormisdas right now.

[@JesGabBreMar]

Do you accept Vatican II?

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

John must not be reading closely I suppose? The formula of hormisdas sham cites a primary source and quotes from it directly. Perhaps you mean I am not reading Latin? But this would not be a correct usage of the term "primary sources," translations are employed by historians all the time--not that I am properly a historian, but I am merely commenting on the method being allowable.

[@RockNow91]

Do you identify as a traditional catholic? If so, what are your thoughts on pope Francis? Do you believe what he is teaching is in line with prior catholic teaching?

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

As a brief reply, john makes a provocative point about the dating of letters 139 and 140. It is in conflict with fr pullers research on the same letter, though I know one scholar that disagrees with fr pullers. The rest of his reply is pretty poor. He says no western bishops signed the formula, but if I remember right, fortescue has a copy of the formula sent to the spanish bishops (it has only very minor variations). And so, johns argument is, I don't see variations in two latin manuscripts so it must not exist anywhere. This ignores footnotes 38 to 40 (I am going by memory) in denny's book. I have only looked up the latin letters there today to scrutinize those footnotes, and though it is possible denny is overstating his case it is also possible he is not. And I did not appreciate john glossing over the entire ending of my article, which gave a citation to a greek reconstruction of the formula of hormisdas without any of the papal claims. So, he pretty much calls me sloppy, but then he is sloppy himself. I am beginning to think that fortescue, puller, and denny all made tremendous errors and exaggerations. I am going to look more closely at some latin manuscripts and try to run it pass a rc priest friend of mine, because I cannot speak for other apologists, but I care about improving my arguments, even if that means walking back something because the scholarship I relied upon was deficient. For what it is worth, I am inclined to agree with John about the dating of letters 139 and 140 but I want to recheck puller and scrutinize him more intensely before conceding that point, especially to a critic.

[@shiningdiamond5046]

John concedes that the Arabic canons are forgeries and you're using his Bum "scholarship"? Lol cmon dude you can do better than that