James, I can see that it will be quite impossible for me to discuss anything with you guys…. is it impossible to discuss EO theology without mention of the Roman Catholic Church? I can refer you to 2500+ posts of mine about RCC doctrine that never mention the EO Church…. I just don’t get it. I’m trying to understand EO teachings, and it seems that the everyone on your side can only teach by bring up the “errors” of Rome.
As far as the anti-Latin flavor of the post:
[quote:3hm3njuo]Indeed, this was part of the seed of the Latin schism – when the western portion of the Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century[/quote:3hm3njuo]
If I hear Latin schism one more time I’m gonna puke…. if you don’t understand that calling it so will bring up ill feelings, I can’t help you or Augustine.
[quote:3hm3njuo] (it’s a mistake to say the entire Empire fell then – this betrays an incredible ignorance of the reality that the Emperor and supreme senate had moved to Constantinople some centuries earlier),[/quote:3hm3njuo]
I never said the entire Empire fell then….. did Augustine copied this from another site, or can he read my mind>?
[quote:3hm3njuo]with grotesque manifestations like …… clear, and disturbing, summary of these teaching.) [/quote:3hm3njuo]
Rrrrrright…… no polemics there…. :rolleyes:
[quote:3hm3njuo]The idea of these Councils issuing clearly infallible edicts in the sense that Roman Catholics have, is anachronistic and involves a caricture of ecclessiastical authority which history does not bear out. [/quote:3hm3njuo]
Again…. is it quite impossible for any of you to answer a question without ending with a reason why I am wrong?
I give up…. thanks for the chat James.