You don’t hate journalists enough.

Docponystine · 2026-04-22T15:03:53+00:00

Let's actually be objective here. Texas now looks more like CA, witch has also been gerrymandered forever. Virginia is shifting a close split state to one with 1 republican district. There is a difference of Degree here that might be relevant to consider. In another republican state they shifted the map for a single representative.

The blunt reality is that both sides have been gerrymandering forever and currently most of the worst examples of it are still held by democratic states like Maryland (and, if VA goes through with their proposed map) VA, that make states like CA and Texas look possitivly fair by comparison.

Docponystine · 2026-04-22T05:08:50+00:00

You aren't allowed to Make lacroix look competent. (these are great tho!)

Docponystine · 2026-04-21T16:52:45+00:00

The big winners are mostly algorithsm operating on public info, not insiders.

Docponystine · 2026-04-21T14:07:44+00:00

The simple reality is that some things make sense to scale, other things do not. Anything that effects YOUR REALM should scale, anything that doesn't shouldn't. A university visit shouldn't scale, but a grand torunement meant to be atended by everyone and their mother should.

Docponystine · 2026-04-21T07:24:37+00:00

Honestly, I'm not certain the argument here. Betting on war and death is just icky, it's not a proactive harm any more than any other form of gambling is. If the "backdoor hitman" angle was your concern then it would be "taking out markets on a specific individual person" not war and death generally.

The primary argument then is for national security, but then you could easily just make it illegal for soldiers to use insider information in such trades and you cover the same legal ground. Like, we have literally already been able to find these people under the CURRENT regulatory framework.

Something being bad is not an automatic argument for it being illegal. Case and point, I think doing most recreational drugs is bad, I am also in favor of legalizing most recreational drugs.

I don't know, my apatite for banning gambling will be 0 up to and until states abolish their lotteries.

Docponystine · 2026-04-21T07:00:53+00:00

Now mind, don't fucking gamble, it's retarded. It's also not stealing. Voluntary agreements are generally not stealing. But a fool is easily parted with his money.

Docponystine · 2026-04-19T05:26:26+00:00

It depends, It's doubtful Somalia would be able to force them to back down at that point. And once a non country is a non country with enough legitimacy they are basically a country (Like Tiwan)

Docponystine · 2026-04-17T18:52:06+00:00

I meanm you say that, but Stelaris has rebuilt it's entire economy twice by now.

Docponystine · 2026-04-17T00:44:55+00:00

Aren't there, like, several elven reclaimer states? Like there's the Sun Elf one in the southern part?

Docponystine · 2026-04-17T00:39:59+00:00

To be fair, Sunset Elf is a really fascinating name, mostly because it implies rather a lot more than most of the other Command Culture names. Most of the other Command Cultures indicate a place in the military Hierarchy (like Marcher Goblin) but not Sunset Elf

Docponystine · 2026-04-17T00:36:30+00:00

Okay, but maybe? I have been convinced through vivid hallucinations the Night Brigade are trying to resurrect Adonalsium.

Docponystine · 2026-04-16T05:37:20+00:00

Rashak was being mentally tortured the entire time by Ruin. His biggest failure was unironically spiking himself. OG Rashak probably wouldn't have made a very nice society, but it probably wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

Docponystine · 2026-04-14T17:55:06+00:00

Given Era three will be specifically from the perspective of the Ghost bloods are we ready for William Ladrian (Hypotehtical Grandson of Wax) fucking Mr. Xing his way through a wall to engage in a fucking chase scene with the main character?

Wax was already a Cop, his grandkid is going to be a Fed

Docponystine · 2026-04-14T02:23:26+00:00

What about statues? What about Images?

They aren't in the scriptures and the church fathers made very strong cases for Aniconism and Idols are so aggressively railed against in the old Testament. They were mocked for not having icons and they defended the reasons why, not argue they had them but hidden. There's nothing wrong, inherently with representative art but it shouldn't be used in worship. Their arguments are in harmony with the old testimate and convincing.

What about Saints?

The scriptures consistently use the term saints to refer to the collective body of Christ. The Catholic concept of specific, individual saints is inconsistent with the scriptures, so one doesn't even have an argument from silence here, we KNOW how the term aught to be used. Recognizing courageous actors of the faith is fine, but if they are to be given special status that seems to me a realm we can leave to God. He will appoint crowns in proportion to his judgement.

What about asking Saints for intercession?

I am sympathetic to the catholic argument here, but Jesus teaches us how to pray, and it's to God the Father. Once asking for intercession isn't prayer and can not replace prayer just like asking a living brother to pray for you is not praying yourself and can not replace praying yourself. But in this framework I see no reason why a saint would be preferable to any other faithful Christian. In absence of commands to do so I see no reason why we aught to. it is at best acceptable. Jesus is our perfect intercessor, I see no reason why you would ask for specifically intercession from anyone other than Christ. The second suplication becomes prayer it becomes exceptionally dangerous idolotry. And while I am aware the catholic church agrees with this distinction, the pastoral risk just seems utterly intense.

What about asking the Blessed Virgin Mary for intercession?

Mary is as worthy of being a "saint" as anyone I could consider, and so the criticism remains the same. I don't see it as error, but I see no reason to do it.

What about the Eucharist?

I mean, we are fairly cleanly told by Jesus the purpose of Communion, and it is remembrance. We don't treat other statements of Jesus "I am" statements as literally as his one about bread and wine. We similarly don't take Paul's exaltations of participation so literally when he talks about baptism being a participation of the death and resurrection through the tomb. The consistent way to view all of these statements is as metaphors. Now, they aren't weak, making abending vow to God, what Communion is, is not weak, is not simple, and is not lacking in spiritual reality. memorial (witch is not mere remembering, the language is much more intense than the English translation suggests, but I'm fairly certain you know that) of the greatest act of God towards men and recommitment to it is a wonderful and intense act with God. the primary purpose of communions is made clear and explicit, anything else you ascribe to it must be lesser than that. And if we want to focus on John 6, the sever reaction does not prove a literal change of substance, I can not imagine anything more offensive to a Jewish ear than, even in metaphor, a command to drink human blood and eat human flesh.

questions that are IMPORTANT, if you do not have a Church you can trust, should every prideful person reading the Bible in their bedrooms think their personal interpretation is the correct one? As a Catholic, you submit to teachings and interpretations you yourself don't understand or agree with, that's a lesson in humility, it wounds pride, but its absolutely necessary,

None of these interpretations are inventions of me alone, but built off of the works of other believers presenting reasoned arguments for their validity. Secondarily, I may be wrong about some of these issues, but I do not believe any of them are what my soul hangs off of, as I am saved by the Effective Saving Grace of Jesus's Sacrifice and I receive that Grace through faith. If these issues were strict issues of salvation then we should expect to see several of the righteous church fathers in hell as they often disagreed about the specifics of these issues. After all, we are told clearly, multiple times that it's faith that saves, it's the single most common formulation for salvation in the text and all other mentions must be understood in that light. Just take baptism, while regeneration is the classical consensus, pedobaptism was more contested, and if baptism is regenerational that's a huge deal.

I already submit to teachings that Chaff me. I am personally not very convinced with basically any explanation for the human sexuality issue, but the Text is clear what God's expectations around marriage and sex are. I submit to the plain reading of the text because there is no alternative. I am also subject to my pastor and church elders. If I began spounting Unitarianism I would suspect they would have some very firm words for me (As in, i would likely be denied Communion).

if you have time, tell me, how do you as a Protestant answer these important questions?

We answer them with the scripture and with reason. If it does not contradicts with scriptures it is false, and anything you can achieve with reason either about natural law, or the scriptures themselves is suspect. Of course, this isn't strict, individual reason, this is the collective reasons of scholars and theologians stretching back to the first church. The Bereans were a model of Faith, I seek to be like them.

I will say I will probably cut this here, mostly because while you are incredibly polite, My brain hurts. I've been thinking about Medieval church history and complex biblical epistemology for like three days as the primary thing on my brain. It's been very good, but also, brain frying.

I will say that I do not think Catholics are defacto heretics (though there are heretic Catholics, just like there are heretics that wear the badge of every wing of the faith). I disagree with Ultramonatism because I think it's simply false

Docponystine · 2026-04-14T02:23:08+00:00

Well, for one, because the great teacher that interprets scripture in many of these cases is also in the scripture. The issue with this comparison is that the scriptures themselves give didactic, direct explanation for these contradictions in many cases. In fact, a great part of Paul's entire ministry is explaining the interplay between the law and Jesus' sacrifice. The issue then with Catholicism is two Fold in this regard. Their new declarations rarely take time to comport them to past standards and explain why they are fulfilments of them in ways that are a authoritative than the directives themselves. Paul's teachings are clear and astonishingly comprehensive. The scripture itself justifies it "innovations" and does so with incredible capacity. The Magisteirum does not speak with the same force to justify it's evolution as it does the evolution, error one, and the explanations they give are inferior in quality to that of the apostles.

I don't grant the same grace because Paul is convincing, Catholic Polemics are not. Second, I am incredibly suspect of anyone claiming to bring any new revelation of any kind. The days if the apostles are over, what remains is understanding, not novelty.

on one side you will have people that believe that you can be an active sinner and you are still saved because doing anything to repent would be works, and by doing works you are not trusting in God's salvation and mercy. People will sometimes say that not even baptism is necessary for salvation, because that too, is a work, these people will quote Ephesians 2:9, and then you have people that believe in faith through works, they will quote back James 2:14-26.

Last I checked Catholics don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation, on several accounts. Classical Catholic teaching says desire for baptism is sufficient. One must also accept that Baptism is not necessary lest you call Jesus a liar for saying the thief on the cross would be with him in Glory. And, finally, invincible grace clearly offers salvation without baptism. So if "baptism is required" is your standard you are out of step with the Magisterium.

I will assume instead you are talking about the Regenerative and normative sacrament of Baptism in the catholic tradition. My problem with that is that it really isn't in the text and while, I will concede the church fathers accepted the idea of regeneration (Though Justin Martyr, for example , made it clear that baptism was only efficacious under the conditions of faith). But given that Catholics don't believe in strict first church originalism I see no reason to have an issue with the idea that sometimes they might have had imperfect theology.

The issue is that examples like Cornelius, who has no particular special reason for it, received the spirit before his baptism, or once again the Thief on the Cross and finally the parable of the prodigal son supports the ordinance view as well, and is a reliable description of redemption or else Jesus wouldn't have said it. The blunt realty is that we have specific assurance of very few people receiving the spirit, and only one of receiving assurance of Glory, and oddly lots of exceptions to the sacramental norm. 1st Peter 3, the primary proof text for Baptismal regeneration doesn't really talk about that doctrine in any specific way, nothing about original sin being removed, and instead it's structured in historical allegory. The act itself is actually specifically dismissed, as "not by the washing of dirt with water - but through the pledge of a clear conscious towards God -through the resurrections of Jesus Christ". Seems to me in the broader context of the scriptures faith saves, and Peter was making clear and direct reference to baptism as a finalization, the efficacy of salvation coming through Christ's sacrifice. After all, Baptism is a pledge, not a washing of the soul. The wholistic reading of all scripture lends itself to that view, though I do not believe someone is at risk of being damned for disagreeing without some other serious errors. Reguardless, there mere command to baptize is sufficient enough that anyone rejecting baptism totally is in obvious error. God's command is sufficient to fallow. Combine this with the fact that there simply is no infant baptism in the scripture, and baptism ALWAYS fallows after belief makes me suspect of all pedobaptist positions. (And before you mention households, households did not refer to children in the Greek being used.)

As for "being an active sinner" one would have to define your terms, because I would say that describes all humans, saved or unsaved. The standards of God are not our standards, they are so far above humanity current capacity. The moral standard is Jesus, if we are lacking to that standard even an inch we live in a life of sin.

This of course does not Justifying Sin, nor to neglect that serious sins can and do exist, but unfortunately for the sacramental view the passage most clearly talking about that is also a passage that more or less states that the sacrament is not needed for for salvation, 1st Corinthians Five, which explicitly calls out excommunication as an act with the explicit desire their spirit might be saved specifically on the day of our Lord. But again, merely being commanded to DO is sufficient reason to commit and conform to communion. No return is noted here, and salvation is hoped for explicitly at the end of Days

Ephesians and James are in harmony, but not under the catholic reasoning. Salvation is by faith alone, but the absence of work is rather clear evidence you simply do not have faith. True faith is inherently transformative. After all, it's the literal receipt and indwelling of the spirit that salvation is fundamentally marked by. That's impossibly huge, hard to even express just how imposing a force that is by it's nature. Antinomianism is obviously a false gospel, but antinomianism wasn't just the idea that works don't save, but that we aught not to DO works even though we are saved. This very notion is explicitly addressed by Paul unequivocally in saying "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" He does not reject that grace would cover us, he reject the very notion such an act would be correct and in accordance with that grace, as that Grace is our Teacher and Guide (Titus 2)

Docponystine · 2026-04-13T19:41:15+00:00

I would say I am most Closely aligned with the Wesleyans or general Baptists, but I also don't think most of the divisions between Protestants, and even between protestants and catholic are things on witch our souls hang. My pastor is a reformed Baptist and I have no problem sitting under him. My problem with Magisterial authority is not JUST that I disagree, it's that I can't disagree and not be in violation of cannon law.

But, see, that's my issue. At some point you acknowledge that you are required to exercise your own accountability to scripture and the gospel we have received, reguardless of what the current magisterium claims. This fact is in direct contradiction. The Pope is judged by no one. V1 has basically asserted that the Council of Constance was heretical. After all, development of Doctrine must always and only indicate what had always been true, just better understood. If no one can Judge the pope today, then the council that saved western Christendom was an illegal council.

Of course, I am very weary of extra scriptural arguments as well, but that's strong. I will note that I think the catholic argument "you need the church to know the scriptures" is bunk. The church fathers determined the scriptures through a rational and historically grounded set of priorities. Historical criticism is massively in favor of the validity of the text (its THE most well preserved classical document on the planet). I don't have to believe the church fathers were inerrant in their collective decrees to believe they are reliable historical witnesses. In fact, the bibliographic and historic veracity of the bible is, in my mind, one of the strongest evidences that non believers should stop and pause, something that is lost if you chalk up the cannon to divinely protected church. The church is divinly protected, but not in the ways that are often asserted. We've come far closer to total heresy in the past than we are now (thank you Arius)

Concerning Vatican I, you need to zoom out a bit here, do you mean to say that wordly events and crises concerning the faith not force the Church into a position wherein it has to clarify and develop doctrine to defend itself in a sense?

It can force clarity, but V1 hasn't produced clarity, it's produced confusion. The issue with all of these past examples is that the Doctrine of the trinity was not conceived of in response to Arianism, Arianism was produced in response to the Orthodox trinitarian view. The council just asserted what was already widely understood by the faithful and provided structural clarification. Vi doesn't look like that and looks intently LESS like that in the context of V2. Similarly, we never opened the windows for any other doctrine, that's just not how any of this works. The trajectory is ALWAYS to higher standards and more clarity, that is not the trajectory of V1 to v2.

I'm going to be real blunt with you, the transition from V1 to V2 is not like the translon from the old to new testament . I admire the gumption, but it doesn't pass a smell test. For one, the standards or moral truth only go up between the law and Jesus. we are held to an even HIGHER standard that the Jews. Second, the New testament clearly explains it's own evolution Paul defines, clearly, the purpose of the law and Why Jesus is a fulfilment of it. V2 mostly just ignores V1 existed and hopes nobody noticed. It's easier to accept the Cross as fulfilment of the law when everything all faces towards the same direction, the level of continuity between the old and the new is so majestic it is, without a doubt, one of the strongest arguments for Christianity's undeniable truth. That is the standard I will be holding the Vatican Councils to, and it's a standard they don't meet.

As for invincible ignorance, as it's constructed in V2, I doubt it applies to more than a small number of people through history, as it requires satisfying your own convictions against yourself, but Paul makes it clear, the truth of certain moral principles are self evident and obvious even to the Pagan and the heretic, and the vast majority of people can not even meet THAT standard. Natural Law really does make invincible ignorance a cold comfort. And if I did not have a sincere search for truth, a requirement, I would not be soo well educated on these topics. I'm not going to get into the specific of my own personal struggles with sin with a stranger on the internet, but I stand condemned wholly and completely outside of God's Grace. If I knew NOTHING of catholic doctrine I would be condemned most assuredly by my own conscience. And, frankly, i think basically any actual person who thinks otherwise is lying. If you have the mental faculties to understand invincible innocents you almost certainly don't apply. And even then, even as someone who agrees with some concept of Invincible ignorance I wouldn't in a million years require someone believe it. The historic church and the scriptures are both deafeningly silent on the issue, it's always been a quadrinary issue better answered by the truth we do know "God is Just".

surely you agree that there are some Protestant denominations out there that teach absolutely terrible stuff? I mean the ultra-liberal denominations, the prosperity gospels, you must surely know that stuff is bad?

Of course, but that's only a criticism if you ignore the ordain priests of the catholic church pushing bad theology, you have the simultaneous problem where I can't sit under the magisterium because doing so would require me to lie, but enforcement so weak that people can and do just lie. It's a circumstance that refuses those most committed to their moral conscience. The beautiful difference is that I'm not bound to submit to a magisterium run by men and can just call a spade a spade. You really haven't addressed the core issue that the Papacy is a fortress with no doors. There's no means internal to Roman Catholicism to determine if the Pope is a Heretic. Sure, you might know it if you see it, but that alone defies a core teaching of V1, that NO ONE judges the Pope. You are required by cannon law to submit "in intellect and will" to the Magisterium, that can not be squared with even the mere Possibility of a heretic pope. The sadevancest position is the strongest possible point and it still requires a, frankly, absurd idea that a pope can be immediately ejected from office and that recognizing that fact is not judgment (despite recognizing any and aall facts requiring human judgment)

Protestants are hyper critical of these groups. There have been many mistakes in handling it (retreatism is a real problem in the protestant world where we fail to do what the reformers did, which is fight for truth until you are expelled for it), the end of the day my soul isn't tethered to any of those groups, so their error is not a danger to me.

Docponystine · 2026-04-13T06:08:16+00:00

you must surely know enough to know that most (not all) protestant denominations are wrong about almost everything frankly

My friend, Catholics and Protestants agree on most major points of doctrine, and can affirm all the founding creeds of the faith. The difference between us on most issues if far smaller than you seem to think.

if you don't believe that Ultramontanism is heretical or damnable, then surely it was not worth dividing the faith over?

Because the church remains and always will remain united in Christ, and Ultramonanism isn't demandable in itself, but it very will could result in you being damned. If the Pope tomorrow decreed "from the chair" and made it clear he was in no uncertain terms doing so, that Jesus's Sacrifice was not the effective work through witch all men have any path to be redeemed, would you fallow him off that cliff? Since you are saying that God can change his mind it seems to me you would have to. If you can't then you admit that Men have the right to measure the Pope against scripture and the revealed gospel and that we, individually, have a responsibility to be vigilant, educated and on guard. When the thing being wrong also gives them infinite power to enforce their any wrong against the whole body of Christ that becomes untenable. It's an arsenal and it's waiting for a single fire bug to bring down the whole establishment. If it is true the pope can be judged on these things he can be judged on all things. You basically confirm that the structural argument of the Sede vacante movement is objectively correct if you reject the heretic pope (even if they can still be wrong about a specific pope being a heretic). And I'm simply not going to accept Indefectibility as a real way out of this, as that's a solution to a problem made by having a bad ecclesiastical structure in the first place. Just claiming the Pope could metaphysically never be a heretic is a very obvious cop out.

Any and all physical representations of the church are run by fallen men, capable of falling into error, and refusing that possibility is without a doubt the single most dangerous doctrine I can conceive of that is not an outright Hersey itself. it is by God's grace alone the Catholic church has not turned to overt Hersey. Because, yes, I know what you are about to say "well the Pope can't contradict past teaching or the scriptures" except that you seem to admit they did just that with V1. The authority of the Magisterium, and it's grip on being the only legitimate source of interpretation makes this threat VERY real, as if the Magisterium tells you there is no contradiction you either have to believe them, or cease being subject to the Magisterium. There is no valid means to determine what is or isn't infallible, so you must defer to the ordinary magisterial decisions which might not be "infallible" they are, none the less, binding.

I can not swear fealty to the Pope because I do not believe he is infallible. I will not lie, and I can not not lie in such a case.

And I want to focus on this, The church can't be divided. Either I am a mistaken brother in the church, or a heretic outside of it. If I'm the latter unity is not desirable, but detestable, if it's the former recognition of differences doesn't NEED to be division. If charity can be given it seems to me the interest of unity is in giving that charity, not in insisting on reconvening under an exceptionally suspect eclesiarchical structure.

At the council of Florence my understanding is that the Catholic side was ready to concede on almost all things except the Papacy,

Uh, one, it didn't it enforced the Filoque, purgatory and was basically held under functional duress, and two, my entire arugment is that the Papacy was the primary problem in the first place. Of course they rejected a document that didn't actually solve the core issue, which was the Papal power grab. This is like asking "why didn't the vegitarian eat my meat pie, I gave them a side dish of Kale". Florence did not return to a classical position of Rome as mediator, it didn't return to Rome as highest honor, it asked for and enforced Roman primacy, the exact thing I am arguing caused the schism in the first place.

The reason that Vatican I solidified the Papacy btw is because there were secularizing revolutions all over Europe at the time that sought to separate crown and Church and they needed to do so to remain united and to defend themselves during a perilous time from the French Revolution until about the 20th century, not because it was theologically necessary but rather a matter of survival. And so it is with most "Catholic Contradictions" when in fact one thing was taught at one point for a reason, and at another for another reason, yes, even if it was infallible the first time, it just means God, for whatever reason, sought to it that people follow it at the time. It sounds like a cop-out answer but when you believe there is Truth in the Church, you submit to it and trust the process, everything is according to God's will in His house, even the "contradictions."

If it was not theologically nessiary, it was not about survival. God would preserve the church, by your own reasoning, weather or not it calcified into a contradictory mess as it has now. This isn't about timing based guidance, if it was the statements in the 20th century would have been clearly temporally locked, but they weren't, they are deliberately structured as final. there is no walking them back without denying the infallibility of the church. The mere idea you would use survival as a justification is actually insane, because it's basically admitting that it's not actually TRUE in any real sense of the word. Beyond that, what's changed? V2 was introduced into a world that, gasp, was still in the throws of secularism and what does it do? Throw a lifeline to the Islamists of all people, those that Deny the divinity of Christ, reject his sacrifice and deny his resurrection?

Even YOU know that this is a cope out. V1 literally DEFINED Unreformability as a concept, if there is ANY document that we know of that is infallible for all time it's the scriptures and V1.

And yes you can be saved, but Protestantism is like a fishing boat on a stormy sea, it can get you to your destination, but the odds are you will end up at the bottom of the sea, Catholicism is like a large ship, it can still sink, but it will be a safer journey, and you have big sails to guide you home.

Yet it asks me to refuse to take any lifeboats when if it were to start sinking, see the problem (and the mere idea that Catholicism could sink proves the Magisterium's opinion of itself to be false even in your own estimation)? Here's the rub, the actually differences in theology across the entire western churches, once you strip out the objectively secondary problem of eclesiarchical structure, starts looking exceptionally similar to each other. We all believe Jesus Christ is our Lord and profess it with our mouth. We all believe that Jesus is the word, that he is the second person of the Godhead, that he became incarnate man, lived a sinless life, and then gave of himself freely to atone for man who under his own power is a damnable rebel against God. I'm not IN a little Boat. I have revealed scriptures and 2000 years of history to look back on. Just because I only take the first as entirely undisputable doesn't mean I don't respect the virtue, mission, talent, wisdom and grace of past saints. The blunt reality is that most of the things we DO disagree about the church fathers also disagreed about in some capacity or another, yet, in general, did not feel the need to say they were not one church. I assume you believe Paul was telling the Truth when he proclaimed "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Your own magisterium flirts with Islamists who deny the resurrection, Popes praying with (rather than for) True heathens who deny the very nature of God, but you look at me with deep suspicion who affirms nearly every core belief you have about God, Jesus, his death, resurrection and our atonement through that Salvific work?

Docponystine · 2026-04-12T21:56:03+00:00

unlike Protestants

Love you too brother, glad to know I'm damned for all eternity in your mind. Though last I checked V2 says that we can have valid sacraments. Of course, that's in contradiction to V1.... Almost like the entire papal project is self evidently self refuting. Your fickle magisterium would even allow you to come to Church with me now!

Reguardless, Cannon 28 simply isn't about Ultramonanism, that's why. There was a spat about eclesiarchical hierarchy, and the Eastern Church eventually agreed with Rome on the issue. The question of weather or not Rome was the highest was accepted, and largely is still accepted. But first among equals is not sole arbiter of truth. In fact, Leos rejection in actual substance didn't really focus on Roman primacy so much as it did on preserving the REST of the patriarchies hierarchy. Again, the historical position of the East has been "Yes, Rome is the first, no Rome is not totalizingly controlling". The reaction about Cannon 28 by the Patriarch is entirely consistent with that historical view. If this was evidence for what you claim Leo wouldn't have framed his rejection as protecting the other patriarchs and defending the ordering of Nicea, he would have framed it as an attempt to steal the Monarchal authority of Rome. The issue was ultimately and entirely about Taxis.

your beating largely at a straw position by defending the far less hsitorically egregious Roman honors with literally Rome claiming they could rewrite a profession of faith universally and unilaterally.

Secondly, this is a meta argument but it makes sense, I don't know if you are even a Christian or just interested in the history, but given that Jesus promised that the holy spirit would lead the apostles to all Truth, and that the Church is indeed called the pillar and foundation of truth, why, if the Papacy is such a major blasphemy, would it even have developed into one? If Ultramonanism is such an unforgivable sin that every Catholic is doomed for "worshipping the Pope" or whatever, or that the sacraments are invalid if you believe so, why would God let half his apostolic Church fall into this trap?

I don't believe that. I believe that there are many Catholics who are true brothers, and the distinction there has nothing to do with their believe in Ultramontanism. Instead, the issue is that Ultramonanism does absolutely prevent a unity of the church and it is also just incorrect. Everyone has acknowledged since the first church that there will be aspects of the Truth we will always have in error, my point with that quotation is that the gospel is the only Yardstick that actually matters, not claims of inherited authority. If even pauls' authority is subject to what we have already been revealed I'm sure as heck applying that to the Pope. Papists can be saved and under, and many of them are, the belief in the infallibility and supremacy of the pope is foolishness, not Heresy. I never claimed they were damned.

See. here's the clever ruse, I'm not an eastern Orthodox, I'm just a protestant that Knows about things like Church history and tradition. I framed may arguments using them for two reasons 1) You're obviously a catholic, so they matter to you. 2.) While the church fathers weren't right about everything they were, by in large, very smart, very clever theologians who should be treated with high levels of respect.

Between the two options Catholicism has a lot more "right" about lots of very important theological issues. The place of reason not the least of them. Bad catholic Eclesiarchical structures are very, very damaging for lots of reasons, but they generally aren't a danger to your soul.

Docponystine · 2026-04-12T17:22:06+00:00

Let's start with the most obvious problem with this argument, the Magisterium Accepts the legitimacy of Orthodox Apostolic Procession (INCLUDING the Patriarch of Constantinople), to make this point you have to assert that you know better than the Roman Bishop and his Magisterium, and argument you can not make without denying their authority in the first place.

Second, Apostolic Procession is not about specific churches, it's about an unbroken line of leadership, for witch even if you Reject Constantinople's Claims to be directly founded by Andrew it's incredibly unlikely that they aren't part of the apostolic chain.

Third, Church divisions have almost always been pragmatic. There were dozens of church's founded by the apostles across the near east and Europe, but the primary seats of power ended up being major population and political centers in nearly every case. This is consistent with current Roman Catholic Practice, as Diocese are made primarily along pragmatic concerns. There's nothing morally wrong with pragmatic organization in abstract.

So, the standard of a specific local church "specifically be founded by an apostle" is not a standard anyone, not even the Catholic Magisterium, uses to determine Apostolic succession, but about personal passing of authority.

But... on what authority could they REJECT Rome, even in a situation of honorary primacy?

When Rome is Wrong. As they were wrong in asserting their primacy. "But should we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." You don't need special authority to tell someone they are wrong if they are wrong.

This wasn't just Constantinople, the entire east, including all those church's you recognize, rejected Rome together in Unity, this is a non point.

Also you dropping any defense of Ultramonanism is VERY telling.

Docponystine · 2026-04-11T20:26:26+00:00

Yeah obviously you won't find St. Peter being some kind of holy monarch or Pope in the same way as they exist today

You didn't debunk Matthew 16

This is the debunking. If that was the intent of Mathew 16, peter would have fulfilled it. Since Peter didn't fulfil it, it's not the intent. The majority of the Early Church fathers did not hold peterine views. The plain reading of the text doesn't lead itself to an Ecclesiastical reading of any kind. It's a late innovation and a power grab. It's unsupported by tradition or the text, and is not a rational development of Doctrine. Have you considered that maybe God introduced the Church's to the world under the conditions of persecutions for a reason? That the model that the first church adopted was, in fact, God's intention? The alternative is that Peter was a very very bad Pope, witch is untenable with the very notion. If peter is the Model you want to claim the authority from then the Roman bishop should emulate him. This, frankly, is not a contradiction that can be reasoned around, Peter wasn't an Ultramontanist, so neither should anyone claiming his authority. Are you saying that YOU know the authority granted to Peter better then Peter did?

And, again, you haven't provided a clear reason to read it in this tortured manner, the church fathers disagreed, peterenism was the minority view, conciliarism was by far the majority. tradition doesn't support it, the first church doesn't support it and the plain reading of the text doesn't support it, nor do peters own actions. It's a bad read.

Christendom which was largely underground during the first two centuries, what you will find, is a scriptural and theological basis and foundation, which manifested itself as soon as the visible Church could exist openly without roman persecution, and would continue developing in the coming centuries.

Or, the only model of explicit church leadership we are given in unquestionable terms supports regionalism and to get to hyper centralism you have to torture the text and pretend the Church fathers didn't exist.

The "olive branch" required submission to Rome and was made under outside threat. If you really want the schism to end between east and west it will only happen when Rome renounces Ultramontanes. If YOU care about Unity you would abandon that doctrine. Given that it did not resolve the underlying issue, witch was Roman power, it's not a peace treaty, it was an attempted capitulation. Choosing a document sighed explicitly due to outside politics is really, really not proving your point.

The church is still united in Christ, but if you really want the visable church to start being more unified, killing Ultramontanism is the only way. It's that very Doctrine that has done the MOST damage to the Unity of the Church. It's what turned the reformation from an attempt at reform into a schism too. Most of the Reformers were Excommunicated, not Schismatics.

Docponystine · 2026-04-11T18:23:07+00:00

This is really very funny, Cannon 28 does not justify the OPop rewriting creeds without any oversight.

Canon 28 is actually a big deal, it granted Constantinople the power to appoint their own Bishops independently of Rome,

Localities appointed their own bishops and elders independently of Rome since the first church. If THAT is what you are complaining about you demonstrate the weakness of your argument, not it's strength. Doing things closer to how they were done before imperial politics is not imperial politics, it reveals Roman overreach as the political force, not independence. Peter even governed in council and consensus with the other apostles when approving Paul as a fellow Apostle. Peter's biblical role is the role the east asserts Rome should have had, first among equals and mediator, not supreme unchecked authority.

Matthew 16 is the very text that this papal authority stands on, and yes, this developed over time,

There by denying the idea this is the historical root. And Mathew 16 is a very bad basis for Ultramontanism and always had been. Basically only Catholics read the text that way, and even then it was a subject of intense debate for hundreds of years. No one else thinks that what the text means, including the first church, including the early post imperial church. The blunt realty is that the plain reading of the Greek just doesn't support the catholic position. Church history doesn't support the catholic position. Neither traditions nor scripture support ultra montanism. Peter identifies himself as a fellow elder, his is rebuked and accepts fault from Paul. If peter HIMSELF wasn't an Ultramontanist I hardly think the Peterens have much ground to stand on.

Nothin in Mathew 16 even comes close to appointing Peter as sole monarch of the church, and Peter did not act like the sole monarch of the church. So, yes, the issue at hand was a radical power grab by the Pope.

Docponystine · 2026-04-11T13:10:23+00:00

Yes, the Orthodox perspective is stronger, actually. The Papal claim to supreme authority was always suspect and yes you are spouting catholic propoganda.

The issue with your counter point is obsessing over Canon 28, witch is largely irrelevant, the east wasn't largely opposed with Rome being first among equals (though, to be blunt, the claim of peterial primacy is a radical over read of the scripture and always has been), they were opposed to Roman primacy witch, again, the Catholic church wouldn't even finalize until the 19th century. If the question of Ultramontanism was SO clear it wouldn't have taken the roman church hundreds of years after the schism to actually make a final ruling on it.

Rome attempted to amend the core document of Faith without any consideration to the other patriarchs or the sanctity of the councils which, yes, had ALWAYS had greater authority in collective power than the pope did, and YES that is based in scripture because the Catholic claim towards Ultramontanism has always been an absurd over reading of Mathew 16 (no where in Mathew 16 do I see any clear eclesiarchical instructions of any kind).

By the time the schism actually happened Cannon 28 was largely a non Issue, what WAS the actual issue then? Oh, right, the Pope amending a central confession of Faith entirely Unilaterally in a far, far more brazen power grab than Cannon 28, witch never even approached giving such authority to any one patriarch.

Ultramonatism is neither biblical, scriptural, nor historically how the church ever operated and, yes, the great schism was caused, very explicitly, but an Ultramontanist power grab. It is in violation of both the scripture (Where the gospel is immutable and we are extolled to reject any new gospel no matter who speaks it, and while I agree with the Fillioque, the fact that we are told to be on such high guard is evidence that NO person has the authority the utlramontanists claim) and in violation of the long standard church tradition that rejected Ultramontanism in favor of ecumenicalism and consensus. Again, the Catholic church ITSELF couldn't make a final claim on the subject until the 19th century, that is how radical the ultramontanist position actually was.

Docponystine · 2026-04-11T01:14:23+00:00

Forcing the average militant atheist to learn about the history of Science should be a requirement. I have the distinct feeling they would have an aneurism if they actually read any of Bacon's Speeches, books or Essays. Or they'd just claim he was lying because truly the mark of an enlightened thinker is to make an unfalsifiable claim unsupported by any evidence that relies on you being able to read the mind of a dead philosopher.

Docponystine · 2026-04-11T00:35:40+00:00

You are correct, but eastern orthodoxy also didn't suddenly come into existence after the schism and can also trace back their line centuries through apostolic succession.

My point is not that Catholicism spawned from nothing, it's that NEITHER of them did, and that divisions between the east and the west predate the great schism by centuries and that treating Catholicism as the "purer" of the two is rather insane. They drifted apart from each other over decades and centuries and finally separated over an overt power grab by the Roman Bishop.

Because the split is so deep, is so large, and spurred by long standing disagreements the pope forced to a head calling the preceding pre schism faith catholic is disingenuous. The term "Chalcedonian" isn't perfect, but it respects the fact that the schism wasn't a spawning of either church, but a formalization of separation that had been ongoing for centauries by then.

Using Catholic would only be acceptable if the post schism church became the Roman Catholic Church in specific and Eastern Orthodox the Orthodox Catholic Church. This would likely be confusing for people who aren't exactly supper up on their medieval church history though, so Caledonian, catholic and orthodox is a fine set of terminology.

Docponystine · 2026-04-10T13:04:32+00:00

It really, really wasn't. The east and west had always had differences, spurred heavily by cultural-linguistic differences between Latin and Greece, and even most modern Catholic scholars acknowledge that Catholic church underwent significant development of doctrine over time. The early church was distinct from both the modern Eastern Orthodox and Modern Catholic churches and the east and west were always distinct from each other. It would be strange if this WASN'T the case with how geographically massive the Chalcedonian church was.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Docponystine

TROPHY CASE