If Rome is wrong, where do you go?

[Arnobius]

Picky, you asked what happens at a council without a pope, mentioning Ephesus II. curiously, not a word on, say, Constantinople II, which also did not have a pope.

We accept Constantinople II as valid

yes, just ask the pope of Rome.

Goes back much further. Pastor Aeternus merely confirmed it

The Seven Councils did fine without it.

You mean including the one where they said “Peter has spoken through Leo”?

 

[whatisthetruth]

Hi surgei

thank you for letting me know about Bartholemew F. Brewer

I do not doubt you honestly believe what you post to be true

.

I do not doubt you honestly believe anything you post either, but

if you believe 1+3=5
and
I believe 1+3=9

you may be closer to the truth, but the fact is we still wrong

In Christianity there are truths we can agree on namely…

we share a belief system which is the foundation in all Christian churches…

We agree
…God is real and truth, He is our creator
…God loves us that…“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. John3:16
…God made Himself flesh in Jesus
…Jesus was born of virgin Mary
…Jesus was crucified to take the punishment for our sins
…Jesus was buried, rose from the dead and ascended in human form into the sky and then into heaven
…through Jesus’ blood we are forgiven of our sins

Is there anything we do not agree on in the above statements?

and then there are things we do not agree on and when we have opposing beliefs in can result in…

As such, I intend to avoid writing things that make you feel you are in anyway under attack.

I am sure I came across on this site like I am in attack mode too, which is surely not my intent,
I can imagine anyone wanting to attack someone else.

At the same time, I will not sugar coat things for you either.

I would not expect you to

I grew up a Baptist in the line that Dr. Mizzi and James McCarthy are now. My father was friends with men they often quote. My siblings and I knew well these men,
as the “Uncle Brother Rice” my sister speaks of (the one who is responsible for the sign language she knows)
was none other than the Dr. John R. Rice who is greatly esteamed by these seperationist Baptists.

Thank you for sharing a little about yourself

All of my siblings and I a have now rejected, to variant degrees, the gospel as we learned it on the knees of these great men.

If I may ask, what was the turning point of your decision to leave the baptist church to orthodox?

Having said all that, I will discuss with you the scriptures from the scriptures.

fair enough.

Keeping in mind that as human beings, each event that we experiance is “filtered” as it enters the mind by what we knew before we experianced that event. This in turn becomes a part of that “filter” when new events come along. It is what makes us as humans able to communicate. Psychologists call this “filter” schemata, or schematic knowledge.

again, thank you for the education. I never get tired of learning

As such you and I can reed the exact same passage in the exact same translation and get different things out of it.
We will likely look at the same passage at other points in our lives and get things out of it then we do now. Isn’t that one of the reasons we read the Bible every day?

Absolutuely agree with everything you said.

What you and I are hoping to do, if I read your sincerity right, is to have the same mind in us that was also in Christ Jesus as we read the scriptures. All Christians through the ages have done just the same thing.

Absolutely, I believe that in our Christian walk with Jesus and when faced with situations, His soft voice in us is asking

WWJD…What would Jesus do?

and then encouraging us…

DWJW…Do what Jesus would.

the challenge is to be obedient to His voice.

Is the mind of Christ chaotic? Does it change with time?

I believe Jesus is constant. The bible says,

Hebrews 13:8
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

 

[whatisthetruth]

Would the early Christians who sat at Jesus feet and wrote before, while and immediatly after the time the apostles wrote the scriptures, have a different “mind of Christ” (schema) than you or I? If so, who is likely to more properly understand what John wrote in John six, you or Ignatius of Antioch who was friends with Peter and John and sat on Jesus lap in the gospel account of the little children?

Excellent question, one I do not have an answer to because of what you said above “As such you and I can reed the exact same passage in the exact same translation and get different things out of it.”

I believe and am afraid at the same time that there might be people who have a false belief of God’s will that they are willing to stand on till the end. It will be in eternity that they find out what the truth really is. Then it will be too late to change their mind and the words they will hear in heaven are

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Matthew 7:22-23

I do not doubt the Holy Scriptures or the Holy Spirit. I doubt myself. I know that, in the past and perhaps now and in the future, I have taken my own schema into the scriptures and come out with understandings that are not the mind of Christ.

I believe we all have doubts. I know at times I do. I believe it is human nature to read a verse and “cater” it to ones needs.

Take a good recipe for a delicios apple pie.
Give it to 100 people to bake the pie from the same recipe.
I cam assure you not all the pies will taste the same.
The reason…“tweeking” of the recipe

The early Chirstians then act in the way that bumper
walls in bumper bowling do. They keep me from falling into the pit on the right or the left.

interesting analogy

Everyone should feel free to disagree. All I ask if you disagree, honestly loving God who wants me to be saved, tell me.

Isn’t that what God wants to be in the heart of all Christians?
You will never see me say “you are wrong” that is judgemental and there is only one judge…God
However, as you have seen, I will ask questions if I disagree with you. God only knows, I may initially believe I am right, but through questoining I may find an error in my beliefs.

Example. If I walk up to someone and tell them they are a liar. I would probably get an unsuspected response. However, if I start a general conversation with him and eventually we are having a cup of coffee at the counter of a donut shop, then I would ask, when I felt “the door is opened”, I am just curious, has there been a time in your life that you ever fibbed or told a lie to someone?

Response then might be more favorable…It might be,
“of course I have, who hasn’t”
and as we share a chuckle, I admit doing the same.
then I ask, since you admitted telling a lie at one time in your life what did that make you when that happened?
when they say “I am a liar”
It just might opens the door to their heart to share the saving grace of Jesus.

Because if you don’t I am likely to go on thinking I am ok

.

Dang the pressure is on now for me to read all you posts. If I do not respond you will believe you ok

Seriously, I understand exactly waht you are saying. If I am walking in the city and somone doesn’t not the car that is about to hit them, I will do anything I can to redirect there path, God only knows I may even jump in the way and shove them so I can take the blow of the vehicle.

Isnt that what Jesus did for all of us?

My eternal destiny and the eternal destiny of all I touch is at stake.

without a doubt, it is the reason I am here. I was RC
The thought of me or anyone else spending an eternity in hell, does not thrill me.

God only knows for sure, but my fear is there is going to be a lot of people who will meet with an unexpected surprise when they get to the other side of eternity and that is (realizing that they have believed a false truth all their lives) , by then it will be too late to change their mind.

To do any less is to show disdain, not for me, but for God.
Scripture tells us that “God seeks not the death of the wicked but that they should repent and live”.

Absolutely agree

 

[whatisthetruth]

One of Paul’s great themes is transforming the mind.

May I add inspired by the Holy Spirit

May our minds not be conformed to the thinking of this world and Christians of this age. Let it instead be made new so that we may know and take up what is holy and acceptable to the Lord our God. Let us also allow, should we disagree on anything, the early Christians to judge us and show the truth.

A sincere prayer from the heart,
May I offer my prayer which is slightly different…

May our minds not be conformed to the thinking of this world but of the will of God. Let it instead be made new so that we may know and take up what is holy and acceptable to the Lord our God. Let us also allow, should we disagree on anything, to be influenced by God and be obediant to the Holy Spirit and we will all see and agree on what is the truth.

God bless you surgei, It had been a pleasure sharing with you

Amen

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We accept Constantinople II as valid

Goes back much further. Pastor Aeternus merely confirmed it

You mean including the one where they said “Peter has spoken through Leo”?

Yes that one:
15. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo. Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—“Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it.”

And again:

“Theodoret,the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle.”’

And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[Arnobius]

An interesting reinterpretation of the history… but why exactly should I consider a document from 1848 to be authentic compared to my own documents?

Such as these elements from the Council of Chalcedon:
And when these letters * had been read, the most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so believe: we all thus believe.
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. (254). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

and

After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo.
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. (259). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

All you have given me is the 1848 interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon. *

 

[justinthemartyr]

if Rome(roman Catholic Church) is wrong, then Jesus would have to be wring, in that He promised the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. He also promised to be with His church always, even til thte end of time.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

if Rome(roman Catholic Church) is wrong, then Jesus would have to be wring, in that He promised the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. He also promised to be with His church always, even til thte end of time.

Jesus didn’t mention Rome, so this is begging the question.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Such as these elements from the Council of Chalcedon:

And when these letters * had been read, : Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius* so believe

All you have given me is the 1848 interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon.

(Bossuet. Defensio Dec. Cleri Gallic. Lib. VII., cap. xvij. [Translation by Allies].)

An important point treated in the Council of Chalcedon, that is, the establishing of the faith, and the approval of Leo’s letter, is as follows: Already almost the whole West, and most of the Easterns, with Anatolius himself, Bishop of Constantinople, had gone so far as to confirm by subscription that letter, before the council took place; and in the council itself the Fathers had often cried out, “We believe, as Leo: Peter hath spoken by Leo: we have all subscribed the letter: what has been set forth is sufficient for the Faith: no other exposition may be made.” Things went so far, that they would hardly permit a definition to be made by the council. But neither subscriptions privately made before the council, nor these vehement cries of the Fathers in the council, were thought sufficient to tranquillize minds in so unsettled a state of the Church, for fear that a matter so important might seem determined rather by outcries than by fair and legitimate discussion. And the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, “It is a few who cry out, not the whole council which speaks.” So it was determined, that the letter of Leo should be lawfully examined by the council, and a definition of faith be written by the synod itself. So the acts of foregoing councils being previously read, the magistrates proposed concerning Leo’s letter, “As we see the divine Gospels laid before your Piety, let each one of the assembled bishops declare, whether the exposition of the 318 Fathers at Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled in the imperial city, agrees with the letter of the most reverend Archbishop Leo.”

After the question as to examining the letter of Leo was put in this form, it will be worth while to weigh the sentences and, as they are called, the votes of the Fathers, in order to understand from the beginning why they approved of the letter; why they afterwards defended it with so much zeal; why, finally, it was ratified after so exact an examination of the council. Anatolius first gives his sentence. “The letter of the most holy and religious Archbishop Leo agrees with the creed of our 318 Fathers at Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled at Constantinople, and confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings at Ephesus under the most blessed Cyril, who is among the saints, by the Ecumenical and holy Council, when it condemned Nestorius. I therefore agree to it, and willingly subscribe to it.” These are the words of one plainly deliberating, not blindly subscribing out of obedience. The rest say to the same effect: “It agrees, and I subscribe.” Many plainly and expressly, “It agrees, and I therefore subscribe.” Some add, “It agrees, and I subscribe, as it is correct.” Others, “I am sure that it agrees.” Others, “As it is concordant, and has the same aim, we embrace it, and subscribe.” Others, “This is the faith we have long held: this we hold: in this we were baptized: in this we baptize.” Others, and a great part, “As I see, as I feel, as I have proved, as I find that it agrees, I subscribe.” Others, “As I am persuaded, instructed, informed, that all agrees, I subscribe.” Many set forth their dif245ficulties, mostly arising from a foreign language; others from the subject matter, saying, that they had heard the letter, “and in very many points were assured it was right; some few words stood in their way, which seemed to point at a certain division in the person of Christ.” They add, that they had been informed by Paschasinus and the Legates “that there is no division, but one Christ; therefore,” they say, “we agree and subscribe.” Others after mentioning what Paschasinus and Lucentius had said, thus conclude: “By this we have been satisfied and, considering that it agrees in all things with the holy Fathers, we agree and subscribe.” Where the Illyrian bishops, and others who before that examination had expressed their acclamations to the letter, again cry out, “We all say the same thing, and agree with this.” So that, indeed, it is evident that, in the council itself, and before it their agreement is based on this that, after weighing the matter, they considered, they judged, they were persuaded, that all agreed with the Fathers, and perceived that the common faith of all and each had been set forth by Leo. This is that examination of Leo’s letter, synodically made at Chalcedon, and placed among the acts.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ii.html
​

​

 

[Arnobius]

Now you are citing an analysis of the council, but it is still non authoritative.

Incidentally I do have the book in question and this is merely commentary on the council seeking to deny the Papal role. The editors were Anglicans seeking to deny any Papal influence.

Know your source before citing it

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Now you are citing an analysis of the council, but it is still non authoritative.

Incidentally I do have the book in question and this is merely commentary on the council seeking to deny the Papal role. The editors were Anglicans seeking to deny any Papal influence.

Know your source before citing it

They cite Bossuet, not an Anglican (albeit Gallican). Know your citation before you criticize it.

Of course, Ultramontanists don’t have an ax to grind

The analysis speaks of things mentioned in the Acts themselves: Leo’s lettter was examined and accepted (actually acclaimed). It was not accepted simply because “the Pope says so.” Rome had spoken, but the case wasn’t closed.

 

[Arnobius]

They cite Bossuet, not an Anglican (albeit Gallican). Know your citation before you criticize it.

Of course, Ultramontanists don’t have an ax to grind

The analysis speaks of things mentioned in the Acts themselves: Leo’s lettter was examined and accepted (actually acclaimed). It was not accepted simply because “the Pope says so.” Rome had spoken, but the case wasn’t closed.

I am talking about the series itself, thank you very much. They consistently cite works that seek to undermine the clear Catholic nature of the Patristic documents, though when one reads the passages cited one can see the tenuous nature of their claims.

How sad though that you resort to ad hominems when you can do nothing else. I certainly am no Ultramontanist, though your comment betrays your own prejudice.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am talking about the series itself, thank you very much. They consistently cite works that seek to undermine the clear Catholic nature of the Patristic documents, though when one reads the passages cited one can see the tenuous nature of their claims.

By Catholic do you mean universal or Latin?

I don’t think the editors hid their orientation, any more than the Latin series “Fathers of the Church” hid theirs. The latter saw Latin doctrine, whether it was there or not.

At least the editors in question used outside sources, Latin and Orthodox. They’re entitled to their slant. Just like you and I.

How sad though that you resort to ad hominems when you can do nothing else. I certainly am no Ultramontanist, though your comment betrays your own prejudice.

What ad hominem?

You brought up that the editors were Anglican.

You assUmed that I wasn’t aware of this, and that that somehow discounted them as reliable.

I just pointed out that they were ecumenical enough to cite non-Protestants.

And that Protestants have the right to their opinion, just like Ultramontanists (I somehow get the idea that the ultramontanist slant on patristics doesn’t bother you. correct me if I am wrong on this), and just as authoritative, if less authoritarian.

Yes, I’m anti-Ultramontanist. I don’t think that’s been a secret.

 

[Arnobius]

What ad hominem?

Ultramontanist was used in a perjorative sense as a label. What next, call me an Azymite perhaps?

You brought up that the editors were Anglican.

More to the point, the series is notoriously anti-Catholic, and that was my point

You assUmed that I wasn’t aware of this, and that that somehow discounted them as reliable.

How nice… grade school jokes

I just pointed out that they were ecumenical enough to cite non-Protestants.

Demonstrating you don’t know the series as well as you claim. They use whatever claims they can find to justify their slant. The translations of this set is good, I have it in both book and computer form. But the editing reeks of anti-Catholicism. Not mere difference of opinion, but rather they cite schismatics like Hippolytus and Tertullian to try to deny the existence of the Papacy, ignoring the fact the reason they were denying it was because they stood condemned by it

And that Protestants have the right to their opinion, just like Ultramontanists (I somehow get the idea that the ultramontanist slant on patristics doesn’t bother you. correct me if I am wrong on this), and just as authoritative, if less authoritarian.

Opinions are worthless. It is what the Patristics indicate what the Church was that matters. Not someone trying to talk away the plain text with an “Elucidation.” that was added to the original set.

Yes, I’m anti-Ultramontanist. I don’t think that’s been a secret.

Well, given I am not a Ultramontanist I think your category is more anti-Catholic, not anti-ultramontanist… or do you erroneously assume them to mean the same thing?

 

[Arnobius]

As a side note, the article you cited identifies the notes taken as being from a Gallican… who happened to have the philosophy seeking to deny the authority of the Papacy,

omitted from your citation:

should consider it a piece of impertinence were I to attempt to add anything to what has been already said with regard to the Council of Chalcedon. The literature upon the subject is so great and so bitterly polemical that I think I shall do well in laying before my readers the Acts, practically complete on all disputed points, and to leave them to draw their own conclusions. I shall not, however, be liable to the charge of unfairness if I quote at some length the deductions of the Eagle of Meaux, the famous Bossuet, from these acts; and since his somewhat isolated position as a Gallican gives him a singular fitness to serve in this and similar questions as a mediator between Catholics and Protestants, his remarks upon this Council will, I think, be read with great interest and respect.

Which is ludicrous to expect a member of a faction can be expected to give an unbiased view

so again you have a case of a biased source…

GALLICANISM
The term Gallicanism describes the various theories and practices which sought to curtail the authority of the papacy vis-à-vis the rights of the government or of the episcopacy and the local church. Though the phenomenon was most prominently associated with the Church in France and found its most developed expression in French writings, similar tendencies were present in other countries as well. Political Gallicanism was concerned with relations between the papacy and the king or parliament; episocopal Gallicanism focused on the rights of the papacy and of the episcopacy; theological Gallicanism reflected on the relationship between the pope and a general council or between the pope and the local church.
Political or royal Gallicanism had its origins in the notion that the king of France had a privileged role in church affairs and an independence from papal authority in temporal affairs. Tensions over competing claims by the two powers came to the fore in the struggles between Boniface VIII and Philip IV the Fair, and between Louis XIV and Innocent XI. They were present also in the first of the Gallican Articles of 1682 and in the Organic Articles added to the 1801 concordat between Napoleon and the pope. Political Gallicanism came to an end with the overthrow of the ancient monarchy and Pius VII’s resistance to Napoleon.
Theological Gallicanism was based on claims of ancient privileges and customs granted to the French Church. It was influenced as well by fifteenth-century efforts to overcome the impasse of the Great Schism, most especially in the teaching of P. D’Ailly and J. Gerson who themselves drew upon the teaching of the Sorbonne. The classical expression of theological Gallicanism is found in the work of J.B. Bossuet, bishop of Meaux. It was he who led the Assembly of the Clergy in 1681–82 to publish the famous Four Gallican Articles of 1682. The first article recognized the authority of the pope in spiritual matters but asserted the independence of the king in temporal and civil affairs. The second upheld the decrees of the Council of Constance (1414–18) concerning the authority of the pope and of the general council. The third maintained the inviolability of the laws and customs of the Gallican Church. The fourth held that although the pope had the ultimate teaching authority in the church, his judgments were not irreformable without the consent of the universal church. Though the articles were condemned by the pope in 1690 and solemnly withdrawn by the king and the clergy in 1693, the teaching of the articles was widely taught in France during the eighteenth century.
Support for theological Gallicanism weakened in the nineteenth century, especially with the development of ultramontane thought. Excesses of the latter, however, gave impetus to a revival of theological Gallicanism, most significantly in the two volumes written on the eve of Vatican I by bishop H. Maret, dean of the faculty of theology at the Sorbonne. The definitions of papal primacy and infallibility at Vatican I (1870) were a direct repudiation of Gallican teaching.
Vatican II, in its teaching on the relations between church and state, on collegiality, and on the local church, may be said to preserve, though in a very different form, some of the concerns of the Gallican tradition.
See also Bishop, Church, Collegiality, Pope.
————
Bibliography: V. Martin, Les origines du Gallicanisme, 2 vols., Paris, 1939. A. G. Martimort, Le Gallicanisme, Paris, 1973.
FREDERICK J. CWIEKOWSKI, S.S
Komonchak, J. A., Collins, M., & Lane, D. A. (2000, c1991). The New dictionary of theology. “A Michael Glazier book.” (electronic ed.) (415). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Ultramontanist was used in a perjorative sense as a label. What next, call me an Azymite perhaps?

LOL I got a good chuckle out of that. You just don’t hear Azymite much anymore!

I guess it would take a Prozymite Uniate Hunky like yours truly to appreciate that one.

Thanks for the chuckle… Proceed!

 

[surgei]

The grade school joke was kinda funny in such a heated thread. Perhaps it was just a typo though.

 

[planter654]

bump
whatisthetruth

hi planter654

God bless you too planter

Hi surgei

I am sorry if I made it sound like a one time thing. I agree it is not. let me explain what I believe to be true.

The initial act of believing in trusting in and accepting the truth of God’s word by faith is a one time initial act that anyone right now can repent and confess their sins to Jesus and be saved.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:9

the prime example in scripture is the thieves on the cross. One thief believed in Jesus the other did not. Non of the thief’s past works were anything which resembled a righteous person. But because he believe by faith, Jesus opened the doors to heaven to him. The other thief challenged Jesus and did not believe, he perished for eternity.

I am an atheist thief and trapped in TWC on 9/11. I meet a trapped christian who shares the gospel with me. God softens my harden heart and I repent and confess just like the thief. I am saved knowing that when I meet my physical death soon to come I will be also looking forward to meeting God and reigning with Him for eternity in heaven.

However God throws a curve ball and I survive the collapse of the tower.

Now I have a choice after I recover from my injuries.

Resume my criminal life I once had, If I were to do that, then my repentance and confession were not sincere and I am not saved.

or have a genuine hatred for the sinful life I had and commit my life to Jesus my Savior and Lord and live my life according to God’s will not Satan’s.

Yes even in my spiritual walk wirh the Lord, unfortunately there will be times that Satan’s temptations will get the best of me and I will sin. But the difference being when I fall to sin there will be a genuine hate for falling and a want to not fall again moreso than I had before I was saved.

I believe God’s word is true, when I sincerely repent and confess my sin, I am forgiven by the blood of Jesus.

Interestig choice of words. Of all the gifts you ever received in your lifetime Did the presenter of the gift ever beg you to take the gift. If that were the case then you are taking the gift out of obligation in order to please the presenter of the gift.

I do not believe God begs His gift to be taken.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him…" Revelation 3:20

Jesus is knocking on a lot of doors(of peoples hearts), yet to be opened. He WILL NOT force or beg His way in. I do not believe that is the way of our Lord. Maybe I ma picking on the word you chose, but the word struck a nerve in the way I felt when I was catholic

Just because someone has a different viewpoint then your own does not mean they are lying.

If I did not believe in what I was saying was in accordance to God’s will, I would not post it. It is not my nature to lie.

God knows the heart of all man. I certainly will not call anyone a liar. If I disagree with someone I will open for discussion, it is the reason I am here. Even though we seem our beliefs are on oppsite planes, I believe there is a common thread we can work our differences on. Lets start with the will of God and His word the bible. as you saw I only quoted from the bible this post.

Let us all agree on the truth

God bless,

truth

I agree with whatisthe truth in his explanation, God is working in him. But what upsets me Surgei is your word used “anti Catholic” which should be banned from this Catholic Forum. Surgei… The “tongue” is a small member of the body which can cause much damage to one,soul.

God Bless

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ultramontanist was used in a perjorative sense as a label. What next, call me an Azymite perhaps?

If you read the post, I didn’t call you anything.

Is there something positive about Ultramontanism?

More to the point, the series is notoriously anti-Catholic, and that was my point

I’m still trying to discern if you mean anti-Catholic or anti-Latin.

It makes no secret that it is produced by Protestants. That doesn’t make them per se anti-Catholic in defending their own (misguided) beliefs.

Demonstrating you don’t know the series as well as you claim. They use whatever claims they can find to justify their slant.

And of course, they are the only ones to do that.

The translations of this set is good, I have it in both book and computer form. But the editing reeks of anti-Catholicism. Not mere difference of opinion, but rather they cite schismatics like Hippolytus and Tertullian to try to deny the existence of the Papacy, ignoring the fact the reason they were denying it was because they stood condemned by it

Check you church calendar, August 13: it’s SAINT Hippolytus.

And Tertullian is the Father of Latin patristics, a coiner of the term Trinity.

Again, the Protestants don’t believe in the papacy (or, mostly, in the Real Presence: they cite Tertullian on that too). They’re entitled to defend their defenseless doctrines.

Opinions are worthless. It is what the Patristics indicate what the Church was that matters. Not someone trying to talk away the plain text with an “Elucidation.” that was added to the original set.

Or those who want to read things into the texts that aren’t there.

Well, given I am not a Ultramontanist I think your category is more anti-Catholic, not anti-ultramontanist… or do you erroneously assume them to mean the same thing?

"Ultramontanism: A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope,…It is sufficient here to indicate what our adversaries mean by Ultramontanism. For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it…The war against Ultramontanism is accounted for not merely by its adversaries’ denial of the genuine Catholic doctrine of the Church’s power and that of her supreme ruler, but also, and even more, by the consequences of that doctrine…For the rest, it is sufficient to follow attentively, one by one, the struggle kept up in their journals and books to be convinced that this warfare by the Rationalist-Protestant-Modernist coalition against “Clericalism” or “Ultramontanism” is, fundamentally, directed against integral Catholicism–that is, against papal, anti-Liberal, and counter-Revolutionary Catholicism.
newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

+Nihil Obstat
+Imprimatur

I belong to the Catholic Church, and I lover her.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As a side note, the article you cited identifies the notes taken as being from a Gallican… who happened to have the philosophy seeking to deny the authority of the Papacy,

I’m aware of that:

(**Bossuet. Defensio Dec[larationis Conventus] Cleri Gallic[ani]. **Lib. VII., cap. xvij. [Translation by Allies].)

They cite Bossuet, not an Anglican (albeit Gallican). Know your citation before you criticize it.

omitted from your citation:

purely space considerations, thinking the above indications would suffice.

Which is ludicrous to expect a member of a faction can be expected to give an unbiased view

He was also a member of the college of Latin bishops. Does that make him biased?
newadvent.org/cathen/02698b.htm

so again you have a case of a biased source…

Shocking as it might come to you, the Vatican website is a biased source, as it believes in the authority of the papacy . I cite it anyway.

The same with the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” and yes the Nicene Fathers series.

Only the brain dead are unbiased. The only time bias causes problems is when 1) it is irrational, 2) will not back up its claims with verifiable sources and facts, with citation. Neither applies to the series you are criticizing.