One argument that our Catholic brothers make a lot on here is that the papacy is a central authority and therefore necessary to shepherd the church. The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that it relies on the central authority being incorruptible, as Catholics rely on the pope for spiritual guidance. The pope is as they say God's primary representative on Earth (if I am understanding them correctly).
But any such authority, once corrupted, does far more harm than it does good. Unless there is some unforeseen coup in the college of cardinals, I cannot imagine a traditionalist becoming pope. Perhaps a deceiver who throws a bone to traditionalists while fully in line with the modernist agenda, but not a true traditionalist.
During the Arian crisis, most bishops were embracing Arianism. The "just follow what your priest/bishop says" types would be in Arianism had they lives in those times under an Arian bishop. Truth has the final say in these matters.
Brody Nelson
Really, we only throw it forward as an example of the wisdom and Will of God in being able to shepherd the Church. But the true pillar lies not in this, but in that Christ gave Peter the Keys exclusively.
Which would be nice, but we've had many "bad" Popes before. We say the Church Herself is incorruptible, not the man. The Pope has veto-power, in other words, the Keys. Things he signs off on in this capacity, is infallible.
We've had plenty of bad Popes for over two millenia, the confidence comes from Christ Himself, whom not only gave Peter alone the Keys, but promised upon Peter alone, that Hell would not prevail.
Well, no. Arianism was objectively heresy.
Christopher Nguyen
You would need to prove, because while St. Cyprian insisted on the need for independent, national churches, he quite clearly acquiesed to Rome on the subject of the Novation (or was Donatist?) heresy. That one heresy where they said the baptism of heretics was non-applicable. Fun fact, the Seat of Rome was actually empty. Yet, St. Cyprian still appealed to the clergy of Rome either way.
This is important, because Cyprian was actually sympathetic to the heresy that the baptism of heretics was invalid, but he followed along with Pope Victor I either way.
Then you should be careful whom you quote, if you really believe St. Cyprian is seriously responsible for a such a gross heresy, why is he still a Saint? When you take up another's argument, you become liable for their mistakes.
Oh! So they can be heretics then?
Original Sin is an explanation of why Baptism is even needed; and how exactly we can be considered "born again".
Yes, the Catholic Church alone is responsible for every single bad thing that has happened to the Orthodox. The Orthodox need not come up with an explanation of a defense of any bad thing, all bad things come from the Catholics and the West. The errors of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine hound the true Orthodox believers to this day.
Sorry, but you're doing the "Stepping back from the argument" thing again.
Michael Morris
Yes, guilty of Lust. I'm not sure what the original argument is even about now, you were lambasting Augustine over a "misreading", but step back when I point out that he never said sex was bad.
It's the same thing. Funny, you read these anti-Catholic polemicists, and just assume what we teach isn't what St. Augustine teaches. I didn't notice any contradiction between the two when I read City of God.
Then it contradicts Scripture, because Christ condemns "workers of iniquity".
Which in your haste to quote your polemicists, becomes the argument. I've yet to see anyone actually critique Scholasticism or Thomism on its own terms, just broad generalizations of "hellenism and legalism".
Then, there is no issue with Western theology, because it is the methods that have survived. No Aristotelian Thomist believes in Eternal Being like Aristotle did.
Sounds good, thanks.
Caleb Smith
So do you think repeatedly asking the same question is going to magically yield different answers now? Cool your emotions and re-read what you're responding to.
Cool, is that supposed to be an argument against the essay somehow? Because it seems you're just doing that thing of not reading the actual argument again.
Funny you should joke about that considering that this can unironically be said about your pope.
That's the Catholic interpretation, not the Orthodox one. Orthodox view it as a sacrament to accept the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Ok, I give up. You just keep spouting this same victim complex while intentionally misrepresenting everything you read, so you clearly have no interest in debating in good faith, thus I'm ending this here. It seems I've already cast more pearls before swine than I originally bargained for as it is. Lord have mercy!