If Rome is wrong, where do you go?

[whatisthetruth]

Hi all,

I wanted to let you all know that I am wrong for coming to this site and sending a “I am right you are wrong” message.

I ask you to forgive me if I have said anything that may ave caused hurt feelings.

I will no longer be posting on this thread. It is obvious that we see God’s will through different “lenses”

We can debate our viewpoints and beliefs from know until whenever and nothing will change.

Quite frankly, I realize debating here is just like a chess match which ends in a stalemate. A lot of time and effort and the end result is no different from where the game started.

Having said that. I believe the answer lies within Jesus and what His will is.

I believe in order to settle a debate…Jesus, (the mediator), would encourage us first to see our similiarities and not our differences. I do not see any other better way to accompish God’s will for us and that is to have a one united church body in Jesus’ name.

That is why I started a “tired of debating lets agree on Jesus” thread. In that thread, Mark A was an example of let us first see our similiarities.

In closing thank you all for your feedback. It has been a wonderful learning experience about why everyone believes in the way they do.

I believe each and everyone of you are a champion in God’s eyes.

My prayer is that the champion which God designed in you may be realized one day as God works His miracles in your lives.

God bless you all,

truth

 

[Arnobius]

Well, Isa, when the battle is lost, I see you move to obfuscation of the issues.

Let’s look at some of your more ludicrous claims:

He was also a member of the college of Latin bishops. Does that make him biased?

Red Herring. The point is the inclusion of him as a source was not to provide a balanced view, but to provide a view to negate the importance of Pope Leo I at the council.

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

Actually the first known use of Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch, who in his Letter to Autolycus used it in a context that indicates the term predated his AD 180 usage.

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries,35 are types of the Trinity,36 of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.
Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the second century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (100).

Moreover, the ECF series cites his Montanist works, which are quite polemical against the See of Rome, as an argument that this was the normal attitude, when in fact it was a heretical group that wound up in schism.

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.

Ignoring the patronizing tone you use, there is a difference of course. The Vatican Website accurately portrays the documents of Catholic teaching, and as such is an unbiased source for the reference to what the Catholic doctrines are.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a source that came from a certain time, and while useful, is on an entirely different level. I do not consider it authoritative on the same level as I would the consider an official Church document.

However I can criticize the ECF series, even when I make use of the translations, because their Elucidations and General Introductions are designed with a bias that is inappropriate for what is to be a scholarly work of providing a translation.

As I said the original works of this series did not contain the Elucidations and General Introductions. They were added later for the purpose of promoting an editorial slant inappropriate for such a work, and the authors they cite in their elucidations and general introductions are grossly inappropriate for the claimed purpose of their work.

If, for example I were to provide a translation of the Eastern Orthodox post 1054 documents and added commentary that was anti-Orthodox, and omitted sections from the sources that were inconvenient to my view, you would doubtless object to my treatment, no matter how useful the translations themselves might be. If I added commentary from Soloviev and said he would be an unbiased commentator on the grounds he was Russian Orthodox, you would doubtless consider such an addition to be done for the purposes of promoting my bias.

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

Given the Catholic Church under the primacy of the Pope is not limited to the Latin rite, but includes the Eastern Rite Catholics (sometimes insultingly labeled “Uniate” by the Orthodox, your semantical argument does not work. Put more explicitly, I am referring to anti-Catholic as being opposed to the Catholic Church under the primacy of the Pope

As for your definition of Ultramontanism, you will permit me to roll my eyes at your convenient citation, as it is not the full understanding, as words do change meaning in the modern language.

Taken in the context of recognizing the Papal authority over all the Church, and recognizing that those bishops in communion with the Pope have their role to play is of course valid.

But given the pejorative meaning which you constantly imply, that those who accept the Primacy of the Pope are mindless drones, you will understand my skepticism of your feigned objectivity and my objection to what I consider to be used as a hostile term.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, Isa, when the battle is lost, I see you move to obfuscation of the issues.

Conclusory again are we.

Red Herring. The point is the inclusion of him as a source was not to provide a balanced view, but to provide a view to negate the importance of Pope Leo I at the council.

Red Herring. You made much of the fact that the editors were Anglican. They produced a Latin who agreed with them.

Can you produce a non-Latin that agrees with you?

Actually the first known use of Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch, who in his Letter to Autolycus used it in a context that indicates the term predated his AD 180 usage.

It is with Tertullian that the term becomes standard.

Moreover, the ECF series cites his Montanist works, which are quite polemical against the See of Rome, as an argument that this was the normal attitude, when in fact it was a heretical group that wound up in schism.

Red Herring. His works are still useful as an indication of ideas circulating at the time. For one thing, his citation on baptism actually is useful for infant baptism.

Ignoring the patronizing tone you use, there is a difference of course. The Vatican Website accurately portrays the documents of Catholic teaching, and as such is an unbiased source for the reference to what the Catholic doctrines are.

It is a doctored version, which an official version, by its nature, is going to be. For instance, the list of popes today does not match those of ages past in all the details. A problem St. Optimus had.

I am sure, for instance, that the Vatican site states that the IC has always been taught. Such is not the historical fact.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a source that came from a certain time, and while useful, is on an entirely different level. I do not consider it authoritative on the same level as I would the consider an official Church document.

+Nihil Obstant +Imprematur.

Yep, it’s official.

What do you consider an official Church document? (I feel this will go in circles, like finding an official list of infallible teachings).

However I can criticize the ECF series, even when I make use of the translations, because their Elucidations and General Introductions are designed with a bias that is inappropriate for what is to be a scholarly work of providing a translation.

You prefer that they hide their bias in the translations (and if you don’t think they are there, you are kidding yourself)? At least they are open and honest.

Red Herring. If you are so worried, ignore the Elucidations and General Introductions. But they do present a view(s) which are based on the documents, which they present for you to read for yourself in full (not disjointed quotes wretched out of context, as seen elsewhere . They even gave you the nice warning about Bossuet).

You are aware that the series predates the “Catholic Encyclopedia” by two generations? Do you put them on the same level.

As I said the original works of this series did not contain the Elucidations and General Introductions. They were added later for the purpose of promoting an editorial slant inappropriate for such a work, and the authors they cite in their elucidations and general introductions are grossly inappropriate for the claimed purpose of their work.

That’s why they sold. They were dealing with a Protestant market.

Your criticisms are no more valid than those directed against Douey Rheims Bible. You know what you are getting.

If, for example I were to provide a translation of the Eastern Orthodox post 1054 documents and added commentary that was anti-Orthodox, and omitted sections from the sources that were inconvenient to my view, you would doubtless object to my treatment, no matter how useful the translations themselves might be. If I added commentary from Soloviev and said he would be an unbiased commentator on the grounds he was Russian Orthodox, you would doubtless consider such an addition to be done for the purposes of promoting my bias.

I wouldn’t waste all my time on attacking Soloviev or your translations. I’d shift out what was useful, note that, pull out your arguments of your commentary, and address them.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Given the Catholic Church under the primacy of the Pope is not limited to the Latin rite, but includes the Eastern Rite Catholics (sometimes insultingly labeled “Uniate” by the Orthodox, your semantical argument does not work. Put more explicitly, I am referring to anti-Catholic as being opposed to the Catholic Church under the primacy of the Pope

But the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which recites her original Creed is not at present under the primacy of the Pope of Rome.

As for the uniates, they are a phenomena of only the last 500 years, at most (the Maronites perhaps a partial exception), and for the most part born of the sword.

As for your definition of Ultramontanism, you will permit me to roll my eyes at your convenient citation, as it is not the full understanding, as words do change meaning in the modern language.

My definition has +Nihil obstant and +Imprematur. Does yours?

Development of doctrine?

Taken in the context of recognizing the Papal authority over all the Church, and recognizing that those bishops in communion with the Pope have their role to play is of course valid.

Valid according to whom?

But given the pejorative meaning which you constantly imply, that those who accept the Primacy of the Pope are mindless drones,

there are a few Latin bishops and cardinals who, given the present head of your church, I wish were mindless drones.

you will understand my skepticism of your feigned objectivity and my objection to what I consider to be used as a hostile term.

It’s a descriptive term.

I haven’t feigned a thing. I’m defending Orthodoxy. My loyalties should be quite clear. That I’m not confined to pulling the authority of the Church, but can argue on multiple levels (even with muslims) doesn’t mean I ever claimed neutrality.

 

[Arnobius]

:yawn:

Your continual condescending marks and Pharisaical arguments seem to be the only consistent, but substance lacks. I am more reminded of the Argument Clinic sketch of Monty Python than anything else.

Continue to play with semantics and sources that do not prove the validity of your claims regarding Chalcedon, I tire of your :juggle: act.

 

[planter654]

Hi all,

I wanted to let you all know that I am wrong for coming to this site and sending a “I am right you are wrong” message.

I ask you to forgive me if I have said anything that may ave caused hurt feelings.

I will no longer be posting on this thread. It is obvious that we see God’s will through different “lenses”

We can debate our viewpoints and beliefs from know until whenever and nothing will change.

Quite frankly, I realize debating here is just like a chess match which ends in a stalemate. A lot of time and effort and the end result is no different from where the game started.

Having said that. I believe the answer lies within Jesus and what His will is.

I believe in order to settle a debate…Jesus, (the mediator), would encourage us first to see our similiarities and not our differences. I do not see any other better way to accompish God’s will for us and that is to have a one united church body in Jesus’ name.

That is why I started a “tired of debating lets agree on Jesus” thread. In that thread, Mark A was an example of let us first see our similiarities.

In closing thank you all for your feedback. It has been a wonderful learning experience about why everyone believes in the way they do.

I believe each and everyone of you are a champion in God’s eyes.

My prayer is that the champion which God designed in you may be realized one day as God works His miracles in your lives.

God bless you all,

truth

Beautiful said with great compassion toward your brothers and sisters. Your message builds us up and inspires us to do the same for others. Like the saints before us, your message gives nourishment to our souls, that can only strengthen our faith. Seeking always in all that we do, we will be found most pleasing to God!

Thank you for the new thread!
Thank You God Bless…a very little child of God.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Surgei,
The Eastern Orthodox have it wrong again. From the Catholic Encyclopedia IV. ORIGINAL SIN IN TRADITION

"On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see “Contra duas epist. Pelag.”, I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time.

It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, “The International Critical Commentary: Romans”, 134, 137; Hastings, “A Dictionary of the Bible”, I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine’s time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, “De peccat. meritis”, I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, “Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum”. They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Augustine, loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)]."
And Surgie, St. Augustine was a better Christian than you or I will ever be. If you can’t beat the Holy Catholic Church, just attack Her Saints. Peace be with you.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

:yawn:

Your continual condescending marks and Pharisaical arguments seem to be the only consistent, but substance lacks. I am more reminded of the Argument Clinic sketch of Monty Python than anything else.

Continue to play with semantics and sources that do not prove the validity of your claims regarding Chalcedon, I tire of your :juggle: act.

Conclusory again.

From the Acts of Chalcedon, after the reading of the Tome of Leo:

[Next was read a long catena of quotations from the Fathers sustaining the teaching of the Tome. (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., cols. 357–368.)]
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vii.html

Why the need, if all we needed was the Pope’s infallible word (is the Tome infallible? I can’t get a consistent answer on these types of things).

Then after this the Fathers cried:
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. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo **and Cyril **taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus *? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

[Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out. This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session was dissolved by the judges.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html*

How did Cyril get in there if it was all about Leo?

Leo had instructed that Dioscoros not be seated, and that the council just depose him according to Rome’s sentence. But Dioscoros was seated. Later

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

[The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favour of the deposition of Dioscorus, but **usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice summoned.]

[Does your copy of the acts have more, say giving Leo’s deposition as the reason]

And when all the most holy bishops had spoken on the subject, they signed this which follows.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html

And deposed Discoros:

The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.

We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of **your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod **and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.x.html

Where’s Leo?

In sesssion V:

[The Committee then sat in the oratory of the most holy martyr Euphemis and afterwards reported a definition of faith which while teaching the same doctrine was not the Tome of Leo (col. 562).]
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xii.html

Gotta go.

 

[planter654]

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.

If Rome is wrong pray for them whether you think they are right or wrong. Always pray for all the elect. We are not the judge.

God promise the Holy Spirit to all who truly seek to know him.
God’s Church… is each one of us, his children. All who believe in the word and the word is Jesus Christ. We are the temple of the Lord who make up the “Church of Jesus Christ” who is and will always be High Priest forever.

Jesus is the bride groom and we are his bride. God said his foolishness is GREATER THEN OUR WISDOM. Rome was not crucified or paid the debt of ours sins, for the price was too high. Jesus Christ did the son of God.

If Rome is wrong where should we go? Where we should be going in the first place to… God! For it is God and only God who can make us Holy! Nothing is impossible with God, but without him we can accomplish nothing!

God Bless…a little child of God

 

[surgei]

Surgei,
The Eastern Orthodox have it wrong again. From the Catholic Encyclopedia IV. ORIGINAL SIN IN TRADITION

"On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see “Contra duas epist. Pelag.”, I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time.

It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, “The International Critical Commentary: Romans”, 134, 137; Hastings, “A Dictionary of the Bible”, I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine’s time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, “De peccat. meritis”, I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, “Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum”. They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Augustine, loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)]."
And Surgie, St. Augustine was a better Christian than you or I will ever be. If you can’t beat the Holy Catholic Church, just attack Her Saints. Peace be with you.

Good thing the standerd is not Augustine nor any other saint but the God who gives us power to become saints. If Augustine is a great saint may I have the privilidge of serving God in Hell for to serve an angry god in hell is far safer than serving an angry god at his feet. For the god he served was the god of wrath, a god wihtout justice except in the limited human understanding of the word.
I never said that the doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of ancestral sin is the same. The Fathers held to Ancestral sin. You assert that the Augustinian view of things is the apostolic view. Show me in the times of the apostles that all men are condemned to hell by the God of mercy simply because they were made by him. This is what original sin says. Roman Catholic scholastics found this unapealing and invented the doctrine of limbo.
The ITC says as much in their recent document.
Please show me where the Fathers teach as you do.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Red Herring. You made much of the fact that the editors were Anglican. They produced a Latin who agreed with them.

Can you produce a non-Latin that agrees with you?

This is the smallest of points, but this line of reasoning is odd.

Put Hans Küng, John Shelby Spong, Katherine Schori and Richard McBrien in a room together, they would probably smoke a peace pipe, concelebrate an agape love fest, and rail against the papacy. Finding a dissident Latin when you go looking is about as hard as finding dissident baptized Orthodox who thinks abortion is OK if you go looking. Neither party provides a very reliable or accurate offering of “official teaching”.

But to then turn around and throw down the gauntlet “Can you produce a non-Latin that agrees with you?”

That’s a head scratcher for about three reasons!

1. 
   *]In the west, why would a non-Latin who agrees, not in turn end up being a Latin? Newman could only hold out for so long…
   *]In the East, we would call them Eastern Catholics… But they tend to get dismissed as “Uniates”
   *]Why does he need to do that? What exactly does that prove or reenforce? Can you find a non-Christian who agrees with Chrsitianity? (cf. #1)

 

[sabbatarian]

Back to the first century followers of Yeshua who were TORAH obedient Jews.
Today there are 200,000 Christians who observe the Sabbath (Seventh day) and Festivals of Leviticus 23. These include the groups which came out of Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God. In addition to thousands of Messianic Jews worldwide. And modern day movements such as the Netzarims, Ebionites and Essene (Temple of Alym) exist today.

There are millions today worldwide who worship God on the right day, the Seventh day Sabbath. These are called Seventh Day Adventists!

May God call you out of Rome and into His truth!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Back to the first century followers of Yeshua who were TORAH obedient Jews.
Today there are 200,000 Christians who observe the Sabbath (Seventh day) and Festivals of Leviticus 23. These include the groups which came out of Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God. In addition to thousands of Messianic Jews worldwide. And modern day movements such as the Netzarims, Ebionites and Essene (Temple of Alym) exist today.

There are millions today worldwide who worship God on the right day, the Seventh day Sabbath. These are called Seventh Day Adventists!

May God call you out of Rome and into His truth!

Sabbatine,

Welcome to the forum.

This post really seemed to demand its own topic in the apologetics forum. I got one started - check it out.

May God bless you.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is the smallest of points, but this line of reasoning is odd.

Put Hans Küng, John Shelby Spong, Katherine Schori and Richard McBrien in a room together, they would probably smoke a peace pipe, concelebrate an agape love fest, and rail against the papacy. Finding a dissident Latin when you go looking is about as hard as finding dissident baptized Orthodox who thinks abortion is OK if you go looking. Neither party provides a very reliable or accurate offering of “official teaching”.

But to then turn around and throw down the gauntlet “Can you produce a non-Latin that agrees with you?”

That’s a head scratcher for about three reasons!

1. 
   *]In the west, why would a non-Latin who agrees, not in turn end up being a Latin? Newman could only hold out for so long…
   *]In the East, we would call them Eastern Catholics… But they tend to get dismissed as “Uniates”
   *]Why does he need to do that? What exactly does that prove or reenforce? Can you find a non-Christian who agrees with Chrsitianity? (cf. #1)

1. 
   Depending on what the issue is, yes.
   
   This “dissident” as Bossuet is dismissed, was a Latin bishop of considerable standing, Pope Innocent XII himself siding with him on the issue of quietism.
   
   Now, yes Bossuet was Gallican, the editors are Anglican, and I’m Orthodox. Somehow the suggestion is made that that makes us all “anti-Catholic” (and I haven’t gotten a straight answer, does ultramontanism=Latin/RCC?), and so our read on the council is therefore invalid.
   
   If this was RCIA that could fly. But it’s not.
   
   The Latin magisterium is not a given here, which is why we are on the “Non-Catholic” opposed to “Eastern Catholic.” And in the case of Bossuet, he was part, and accepted, the Latin magisterium.
   
   The point which has been made, and avoided in answering, is the record of the reception of Leo’s Tome.
   
   When pope Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus, there was no disscussion. It was accepted because the pope said so, said so ex cathedra (the only one pronouncement every Latin seems to agree on). There was no discussion on the matter, no distribution for comments and criticism.
   
   The Tome itself states it was sent in June 449. It reached the East by August, because it was there to be refused by the Robber Council.
   
   It nonetheless disseminated, and had 2 years to do so. The record of the Acts show that the letter was examined, support from Tradition was gathered for it, etc.
   
   Leo gave specific instructions of how to conduct the proceedings at Chalcedon (not in Italy, as Leo wanted). They were ignored.
   
   The letter was read, and as the acts say quotations from the Fathers that supported it.
   
   No such process applied with Munificentissimus Deus. The Tome was not excepted just because the Pope said so.
   
   I get the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that there is confusion on that point. It seems that the Latins are under the impression that the letter was read to a group who had never heard its contents before, and then spontaneous proclaimed it dogma because Peter through Leo said so (conviently ignoring that the acclamations also mentioned Pope Cyril of Alexandria).
   
   If placing the acclamations in the context of the Acts of the Council, and other history is :juggle: sorry, no can :bowdown:

 

[Benedict16]

What is this comment “May God call you out of Rome??” Many people are “Coming home to Rome”, they are realizing the truth, The truth that all the religions are off-shoots from Catholicism.
I just came back from Europe, I went to five countries and everything is Catholic. There is a church dating back centuries ago on every corner. The Blessed Mother is everywhere, especially Croatia.
I received communion at the Vatican, was Blessed by the pope himself and entered the Catacombs of the early Christians. Everything in these catacombs was thoroughly true in Catholicism.
I’ll never understand why people know that there are 30,000 denominations of Protestanism, and only one Catholic church. What does this tell you?
It is much easier to be a Protestant than a Catholic. Perhaps this is a reason to become one. For me, I love the holiness of my church, the authority in it and the one true faith of Jesus Christ. Peace.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What is this comment “May God call you out of Rome??” Many people are “Coming home to Rome”, they are realizing the truth, The truth that all the religions are off-shoots from Catholicism.
I just came back from Europe, I went to five countries and everything is Catholic. There is a church dating back centuries ago on every corner. The Blessed Mother is everywhere, especially Croatia.
I received communion at the Vatican, was Blessed by the pope himself and entered the Catacombs of the early Christians. Everything in these catacombs was thoroughly true in Catholicism.
I’ll never understand why people know that there are 30,000 denominations of Protestanism, and only one Catholic church. What does this tell you?
It is much easier to be a Protestant than a Catholic. Perhaps this is a reason to become one. For me, I love the holiness of my church, the authority in it and the one true faith of Jesus Christ. Peace.

None of the places in the OP is Protestant.

They are all Catholic.

 

[Deconi]

Back to the first century followers of Yeshua who were TORAH obedient Jews.
Today there are 200,000 Christians who observe the Sabbath (Seventh day) and Festivals of Leviticus 23. These include the groups which came out of Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God. In addition to thousands of Messianic Jews worldwide. And modern day movements such as the Netzarims, Ebionites and Essene (Temple of Alym) exist today.

There are millions today worldwide who worship God on the right day, the Seventh day Sabbath. These are called Seventh Day Adventists!

May God call you out of Rome and into His truth!

Your problem, like all SDAs and mentioned Jews, is that you are still ‘LIVING’ in the Old Testament. We are under a NEW Testament, started by Christ. You probably are also under the delusion that you can imagine yourself ‘Christian’ when in fact you no longer follow Christ!

Study and learn so that you can comprehend why Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, and what the difference is between the sabbath and The Lord’s Day (Sunday)

 

[Benedict16]

None of the places in the OP is Protestant.

They are all Catholic.

Apparently when you say something like “May God take you out of Rome to find the truth”, does that sound Catholic to you?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Apparently when you say something like “May God take you out of Rome to find the truth”, does that sound Catholic to you?

Depends on what Rome is saying and doing.

“You say”? Me? Did I say “May God take you out of Rome to find the Truth?”

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Moderator Note:

Please review our policy on the use of the words uniate, schismatic, and heretic