If Rome is wrong, where do you go?

[planter654]

well said planter I absolutely agree. Because we are all equal God has no favorites.

And because God is “HOLY” we as sinful children cannot reign with Him in heaven unless we have been saved by the blood of Jesus.

**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/

When is the last time you heard that verse in church?
The most precious gift anyone can receive by opening your heart to Jesus and asking Him to come in as Lord and Saviour

Merry Christmas

What you have spoken above is beautiful and truth. Thank you for sharing what you have received with me. My belief exactly.
God Bless…a very little child of God

 

[surgei]

**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

When is the last time you heard that verse in church?

this morning. It is part of the priests prayers in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church of Ameirca.

 

[surgei]

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

jburgherr, after reading that verse, what is God saying to you?.

When was the last time a priest asked you,
have you accepted the gift of eternal life which God is offering in Romans 6:23?

May we all agree on the truth

Have a Merry Christmas

truth

You seem to have fallen onto the idea that the acceptance of the gift is a one time thing. It is not. Eternal life starts now. Eternal life is union with God. As such we reject the gift time and time again. As historic Christians we do not assure ourselves the prise until the crown is placed on our heads as victors and finnishers of the race which is set before us. We pray for the ability to accept and keep that gift of divine life every day. Every time a priest calls us to confession he is begging us to take that gift.

You quote from avowed anti Catholic, anti-historic Christian web pages and authors. Many in this crowd either out right lie or twist so extremely that it does not even resemble the truth in its glory. Why?
James G. McCarthy is amazing in his lies. In praise for his book “The Gospel According to Rome” he quotes Brewer who claims to have been secretly ordained a bishop as a reward. This is the likes of Jack Chic.
Get a better source please.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And because God is “HOLY” we as sinful children cannot reign with Him in heaven unless we have been saved by the blood of Jesus.

As we say, as the priest communes:

I believe O Lord, and I confess, that Thou art trule the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.

And I believe that This is Thy most pure Body, and that This is Thy precious Blood, wherefore, I pray Thee, have mercy on me, and forgive my trangressions, both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, committed in knowledge and in ignorance, and make me worthy to partake of Thy most pure Body, and Thy precious Blood, for the remission of sins and unto Life everlasting.

Of Thy mystical supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant. For I will not speak of Thy mysteries to Thine enemies, nor will I give Thee a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief will I confess Thee: Remember me O Lord, when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom.

May the partaking of Thy Holy Mysteries, O Christ, be neither for my judgment, nor for my condemnation, but for the healing of soul and body. Amen.

Lord, be merciful to me, the sinner.

**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

When is the last time you heard that verse in church?

this morning. It is part of the priests prayers in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church of Ameirca.

And all Eastern Rite Orthodox throughout the world:

Priest : It is meet and right to hymn Thee, to bless Thee, to praise Thee, to thank Thee, to worship Thee in every place of Thy dominion; for Thou art God ineffable inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever existing, yet ever the same, Thou, and Thy only-begotten Son, and Thy Holy Spirit; Thou who hast called us from non-existence into being, and raised us up again when we had fallen, and left nothing undone, until Thou hast brought us into heaven and bestowed upon us Thy kingdom which is to come. For all this we give thanks to Thee, and to Thy only-begotten Son, and to Thy Holy Spirit, for all that we know and that we know not, the benefits bestowed upon us manifest and the unsees. We thank Thee also for this ministry, which Thou hast deigned to accept from our hands, even though there stand before Thee thousands of archangels, myriads of angels, Cherubim and Seraphim, six winged, many-eyed, soaring aloft on their wings.
PRIEST: saying the triumphal Hymn: singing shouting, and proclaiming.
PEOPLE: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory, hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, hosanna in the highest.

Priest: With these blessed powers we also, O Master, Lover of men cry and say: Holy art Thou and all holy, Thou, and Thy only-begotten Son, and Thy Holy Spirit; holy art Thou and all holy and magnificent is Thy glory, who so loved the world that Thou gavest Thy only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but should have life everlasting; Who, having come and having fulfilled the whole Divine plan concerning us, on the night when He was betrayed, or rather, gave Himself up for the life of the world, took bread into His holy and all pure and Immaculate hands, gave thanks and blessed, (priest blesses bread) sanctified, broke and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:

PRIEST: Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY, which is broken for you for the remission of sins.

PEOPLE: Amen.

Priest : In like manner t (priest blesses chalice) also the chalice, after the supper, saying:

PRIEST: Drink of this all, THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.

PEOPLE: Amen.

Priest : Remembering, therefore, this salutary command, and all that was done in our behalf: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven the sitting at the right hand, the second and glorious coming.

[The priest lifts the chalice and diskos up and makes the sign of the cross with them, saying:]

PRIEST: Thine own of Thine own, we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all, and for all.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

jburgherr, after reading that verse, what is God saying to you?.

When was the last time a priest asked you,
have you accepted the gift of eternal life which God is offering in Romans 6:23?

This morning:

Priest [silently wipping chalice]: Behold, this has touched my lips, and shall take away my iniquities, and shall cleanse my sins.

[Priest turns to people and says:]

PRIEST: With the fear of God, and in Faith and love, draw near. .

[Those going to communion go to the altar.]

PEOPLE: Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord: the Lord is God and has revealed Himself to us.

[Then at communion:]

PRIEST: The servant of God Isa, partakes of the precious, most holy and most pure Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins and unto life everlasting. Amen.

Merry Christmas

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

The most precious gift anyone can receive by opening your heart to Jesus and asking Him to come in as Lord and Saviour

And receive Him in the Holy Eucharist, so that He abides in you, and you in Him. John 6:56.

 

[whatisthetruth]

bump
whatisthetruth

Because we are all equal God has no favorites.
And because God is “HOLY” we as sinful children cannot reign with Him in heaven unless we have been saved by the blood of Jesus.
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
The most precious gift anyone can receive by opening your heart to Jesus and asking Him to come in as Lord and Saviour

hi planter654

What you have spoken above is beautiful and truth. Thank you for sharing what you have received with me. My belief exactly.
God Bless…a very little child of God

God bless you too planter

Hi surgei

You seem to have fallen onto the idea that the acceptance of the gift is a one time thing.

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.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

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

Every time a priest calls us to confession he is begging us to take that gift

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

You quote from avowed anti Catholic, anti-historic Christian web pages and authors. Many in this crowd either out right lie or twist so extremely that it does not even resemble the truth in its glory.
James .

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

 

[surgei]

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

Please understand that unless you are Bartholemew F. Brewer, I was not calling you a liar. Brewer claims to be a former priest. He also claims to have been secretly made bishop as a reward. Yet there is no record of him ever being a priest in the order he claims to have been from. The link to Just for Catholics origonaly poasted by you in post #278 has links to Good News for Catholics which is the ministry of James G. McCarthy. In his anti-Catholic book The Gospel According to Rome, McCarthy publishes a testimonial in favor of the book written by Brewer. If McCarthy was a man of integrity in scholarship he would not likely associate himself with Brewer as many protestant apologists, such as Dr. Mike Witmer and Nathen Clason M. Div., Ph. D. Ed., don’t. Notice I said integrity in scholarship, not integrity of charecter. One deals with what can be easily seen and evaluated. As I personally have not had much contact with James I cannot say I find any personal integrity flaws. Likewise if Dr. Joe Mizzi, the author of the page you sighted, had any scolastic integrity he would not link to the assundry of the pages he has. I do not doubt that Dr. Mizzi is well intended, just as I do not doubt he is a great pediatrician in Malta. What I find fault with is what I and many others feel is poor scolarship in his theological writings.
I do not doubt you honestly believe what you post to be true. As such, I intend to avoid writing things that make you feel you are in anyway under attack. At the same time, I will not sugar coat things for you either. 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. 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.

cont…

 

[surgei]

Having said all that, I will discuss with you the scriptures from the scriptures.
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. Without the same schema communication is not only difficult, it is impossible. Were I to say, “Mat’s trip to Kittyhawk was a dream come true”. You would likely wonder “who is Mat”. You might guess, if you know about the brothers who tested their invention of the airplane there, that Mat is a flight enthusiast. This is because you and I share a base of schema, if you knew about Kittyhawk, and yet have different schema of Mat. If however, I said it in Russian and you did not understand Russian, then I would expect you to have no clue what I said. As you and I may share the schema about Kittyhawk and even Mat, you would not posess the schema to understand what I said.
We take this issue of lack or abundance of schema, like it or not, into our reading of scripture. 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?
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. Is the mind of Christ chaotic? Does it change with time? 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?
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.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.
Everyone should feel free to disagree. All I ask if you disagree, honestly loving God who wants me to be saved, tell me. If you say I am wrong, back it up. Show me where and why I am wrong. Because if you don’t I am likely to go on thinking I am ok. My eternal destiny and the eternal destiny of all I touch is at stake. 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”.
One of Paul’s great themes is transforming the mind. 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.

 

[Arnobius]

You mean oft swept under the rug.

No, refuted. I suggest you actually try looking some of them up

Your chain is only as strong as its weakest links, as you claim the papacy as the link to heaven.

Strawman. We have acknowledged sinful Popes.

Some confirming the brethren, failing to act or being ambigous. With leadership like that, who needs heresy?

Like your Caeseropapism where the Emperors and Czars and non-Christians dictated what could and could not be discussed? Like tolerating divorce and remarriage where Christ did not? Like overturning the continual rejection of contraception? Catholic teaching at least remains consitent here

And?

Even bigger ‘And’?

Since you brought up the “errors” of the Popes, it logically follows your errors also must be considered. As the errors of the East were embraced by the Emperors and Patriarchs but not the Popes, that says something.

Like ultramontism.

Condemned by the Catholic Church, so you have no point

Arianism lived on in the West, whereas it died out in the East.

Condemned by the Catholic Church, embraced by Eastern Christians and Emperors

Nestorianism. I have no clue who you are talking about here.

Nestorius I believe, as well as the Clergy and Emperors. Condemned by the Catholic Church

Monotheletism. Honorius.

Not Honorius. The most one could accurately claim was that he made an ambiguous private statement which could be interpreted that way. But private statements are not covered under infallibility

Iconoclasm. Council of Frankfurt.

But not the whole Church, condemned by Rome and embraced in the East.

Problem that you painted yourself in a corner: infallibity requires a perfect score card. And yours isn’t for the first millenium, let alone after 1054.

It is perfect, though you have a distorted view. Show us one heretical Ex cathedra statement

Since then you have been so swamped with heresies it seems, that you needed over a dozen more councils, far more than the rate we had in the East when we were all one. and we haven’t had the need for one.

Heh… Soloviev has a more accurate interpretation of that. Rather nobody in the East is recognized with the authority to call one.

Your claim is akin to boasting that your car has had no accidents while neglecting to mention it is due to the fact your car has no engine or wheels.

I recommend you look up the Robber Council of Ephesus to see the results of a Council without a Pope.

Moreover you seem to have a odd post hoc linking of heresies and councils, to assume it was a weakness in the Church to lead to a need for councils.

Does protecting true Christianity include mangling her Creed?

Filioque preserves the meaning of the Trinity. The denial of it allows for all sorts of misunderstandings

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, refuted. I suggest you actually try looking some of them up

Have. Hence my observation, “swept under the rug.”

Strawman. We have acknowledged sinful Popes.

On a erstwhile forum, I gave the string of popes (according to the present official list, it changes you know) annulling and affirming their papacies, in the midst of which was the Cadaver Synods.

Like your Caeseropapism where the Emperors and Czars and non-Christians dictated what could and could not be discussed?

You mean like at your Councils of Lyons and Florence? You seem to like it when the emperor tries to bend our knees to the Latins.

I mean like Justinian, who forced the condemnation of the Three Chapters, whereas Pope Vigilius wasn’t up to the job. And eliminated the Arian powers.

Like tolerating divorce and remarriage where Christ did not?

Are you confusing us with Henry VIII, named by the pope of Rome as defender of the faith?

When the EP wouldn’t OK Emperor Leo VI, he got approval from the pope of Rome.

The distinction without a difference over annullment and divorce has been posted.

Like overturning the continual rejection of contraception? Catholic teaching at least remains consitent here

You would expect more patristics in Humanae Vitae, if that were the case. A great document, none the less.

Since you brought up the “errors” of the Popes, it logically follows your errors also must be considered.

We’re not claiming infallibilty for either Patriarch nor emperor (whom you keep bringing up).

As the errors of the East were embraced by the Emperors and Patriarchs but not the Popes, that says something.

Pope Honorius.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Condemned by the Catholic Church, so you have no point

Oh? The “Catholic Encyclopia,” and whoever gave the nihil obstant and imprematur seem not to know that:
"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. "
newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

Condemned by the Catholic Church, embraced by Eastern Christians and Emperors

Valentian I and II, for instance, were emperors in the West. Ambrose had to combat the Arians for dominance of Milan (where Auxentius the Arian bishop continued the work of his foster father Ulfinas), and in the West: Spain, Italy and North Africa German Arians held sway, until the Eastern Christians and Emperor eliminated them.

Nestorius I believe, as well as the Clergy and Emperors. Condemned by the Catholic Church

Nestorius was deposed by the Clergy and hierarchy (Pope Cyril of Alexandria being the leader), and exiled by the emperor. So again, I have no idea who you are talking about here.

Not Honorius. The most one could accurately claim was that he made an ambiguous private statement which could be interpreted that way. But private statements are not covered under infallibility

The Sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo claimed more, and anathematized him, the Liber Diuralis showing that for centuries every Pope of Rome anathematized Honorius on taking office.

Of course, we can’t get a straight answer on what is an infallible statement since 1870, let alone before.

But not the whole Church, condemned by Rome and embraced in the East.

But not the whole Church, condemned by Nicea and embraced in the West with its “Reformation.”

It is perfect, though you have a distorted view. Show us one heretical Ex cathedra statement

Pastor Aeternus for one.

Heh… Soloviev has a more accurate interpretation of that.

You mean his sophiology?

Rather nobody in the East is recognized with the authority to call one.

We have had several Pan Orthodox councils without a problem since the fall of Constantinople and the emperor. So, no problem.

Your claim is akin to boasting that your car has had no accidents while neglecting to mention it is due to the fact your car has no engine or wheels.

No, just superior GPS.

I recommend you look up the Robber Council of Ephesus to see the results of a Council without a Pope.

I recommend you look up your “ecumenical council” of Constance on one with a pope (three in fact ). And Siena on how revisionism is in play for papal infallibility.

Moreover you seem to have a odd post hoc linking of heresies and councils, to assume it was a weakness in the Church to lead to a need for councils.

No, just that each Council was an amputation operation.

Filioque preserves the meaning of the Trinity. The denial of it allows for all sorts of misunderstandings

Soo the Fathers at the Ecumenical Councils didn’t understand what they were talking about. And your “infallible” Pope Leo posted the origin Creed on the doors of St. Peter’s, to prevent “all sorts of misunderstandings.”

 

[Arnobius]

:yawn:

For all your protests, you really haven’t refuted one thing I said, merely gave a polemical twist to them, making use of the ad hominem, but not demonstrating any real understanding of how Catholics understand these things.

Mere contradiction is not a rebuttal. Merely repeating the point ad infinitum doesn’t make them true.

You’ve given the post 1054 spin, but have not yet proven your point.

But if all you can do is repeat and not offer something substantial, then I for one am off to bed and see no purpose in continuing the discussion.

 

[surgei]

:yawn:

For all your protests, you really haven’t refuted one thing I said, merely gave a polemical twist to them, making use of the ad hominem, but not demonstrating any real understanding of how Catholics understand these things.

Mere contradiction is not a rebuttal. Merely repeating the point ad infinitum doesn’t make them true.

You’ve given the post 1054 spin, but have not yet proven your point.

But if all you can do is repeat and not offer something substantial, then I for one am off to bed and see no purpose in continuing the discussion.

You seem to equate protestantism (the heretical teachings that are of the west) and non comunion with Rome. The 1054 twist is the same twist the fathers have. As with any novelty that is pedled, the burden of proof for the need of the novelty is on the RC. If you believe what you say you do, show me in the fathers, or show me why I need your new snake oil.
Who is the one to count refutation? May the Lord rebuke you.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

:yawn:

For all your protests, you really haven’t refuted one thing I said, merely gave a polemical twist to them, making use of the ad hominem, but not demonstrating any real understanding of how Catholics understand these things.

Mere contradiction is not a rebuttal. Merely repeating the point ad infinitum doesn’t make them true.

You’ve given the post 1054 spin, but have not yet proven your point.

But if all you can do is repeat and not offer something substantial, then I for one am off to bed and see no purpose in continuing the discussion.

Well, I guess you told me.

So, how do you understand/explain your synods of Constance and Siena: how does a pope stand over a council that creates another pope out of two, and requires him to call a council (Siena) that he finds expedient to declassify as Ecumenical?

 

[marlo]

the bishop of rome claimants, whether he was anti-pope or a true pope, will have to resign, so that the See is vacant. the council is called to ask the claimants to resign so that an election could occur and settle disputes regarding the validity of Ordination of the claimants bishops.

Well, I guess you told me.

So, how do you understand/explain your synods of Constance and Siena: how does a pope stand over a council that creates another pope out of two, and requires him to call a council (Siena) that he finds expedient to declassify as Ecumenical?

 

[mangy_dog]

If Rome is wrong, go to Makkah and Madinah for the correct answers.

RULE # 1: The Catholic Church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first pope - 263 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.

RULE # 2: See rule number one.

RULE # 3: See rule number two.

 

[Arnobius]

Well, I guess you told me.

So, how do you understand/explain your synods of Constance and Siena: how does a pope stand over a council that creates another pope out of two, and requires him to call a council (Siena) that he finds expedient to declassify as Ecumenical?

I assume you mean Haec sancta from Constance. Since this decree was never accepted by the Pope (required for a valid Council decree) it is not binding as it was part of a session presided over by an anti-pope.

Pastor Aeternus merely confirms what had been practice, and a Council requires Papal confirmation to be valid.

Since the valid Pope at the time willingly relinquished power for the good of the Church, your principle of Conciliarism does not work.

 

[Arnobius]

You seem to equate protestantism (the heretical teachings that are of the west) and non comunion with Rome. The 1054 twist is the same twist the fathers have. As with any novelty that is pedled, the burden of proof for the need of the novelty is on the RC. If you believe what you say you do, show me in the fathers, or show me why I need your new snake oil.
Who is the one to count refutation? May the Lord rebuke you.

In other words, “Prove me wrong” is the crux of your argument

You are the one to make allegations, but instead of proving them, you demand we refute you.

I’ll stick with the Barque of Peter thank you very much, as my prayer and study has led me there.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

“My point exactly” and next time you are in the RCC or visiting the Vatican take a look around what do you see?

God Bless…a very little child of God

Have you ever been to the Vatican???

The UN has nothing on Vatican traffic - the faithful come from every corner, nation, tribe, color, ethnic flavor and sports team!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I assume you mean Haec sancta from Constance. Since this decree was never accepted by the Pope (required for a valid Council decree) it is not binding as it was part of a session presided over by an anti-pope.

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.

Pastor Aeternus merely confirms what had been practice, and a Council requires Papal confirmation to be valid.

yes, just ask the pope of Rome.

The Seven Councils did fine without it.

Since the valid Pope at the time willingly relinquished power for the good of the Church, your principle of Conciliarism does not work.

After 40 years of chaos. He wasn’t the only one running around.

The council induced him to go. And its not my principle of Conciliarism (we wouldn’t have the same problem happen in the first place), it’s a Western flavor.