R
rcwitness
Guest
My leaders are Catholic Bishops.canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/
- Status
My leaders are Catholic Bishops.canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/
B
benhur
Guest
Hi Pete.
I suppose it’s the the same on this side of fence…hard core fundamentalism has its place ,and I partly admire hard convictions…just that I would hope hope to admire correct convictions even more (truth tempered with wisdom and love)…and yes some of the Piuses were "bad’ , condemning bible societies, separation of church and state, liberty of conscience,(VIII,IX) religious toleration and denounced reformers and ecumenism(X,XI)
Blessings
S
steve_b
Guest
:ehh: I have to say, benhur,
you’re putting conditions that are not there.
Matthew 16:19 , and if problems arise, one is to take their issues to the Church, and if one won’t listen even to the Church then In Context
I would just add, one doesn’t want to be outside the Church in that case.
We are to be at peace with His Church.
After all, Jesus said (footnotes are operational)
".I will build my church, and the powers of deathc] shall not prevail against it.d] RSVCE
now THAT’S a promise ! agreed?
bh:
That’s true. But it’s more than that.
In technical terms, for one to be in heresy, they first need valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. The reason I quote valid references so much, properly referenced, is so that no one thinks I’m giving my personal opinion on stuff. All this comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
2089
Therefore, in the (NT) scriptures, everyone being written to, are all baptized members of the Church. Therefore when division/schism and heresy are mentioned in the scriptures, that I’ve already quoted, it applies to the baptized. As one can see then, from the consequences mentioned in the passages referenced, those actions are deadly sins. Again, not my words but that’s from scripture already quoted. Therefore, Baptism obliges one to formally be in full communion with the Catholic Church and remain that way… or else (once someone knows the truth and refuses to enter or remain in the Catholic Church) the consequences are one won’t inherit the “kingdom of God” i.e. one won’t inherit heaven, .
bh:
Re: Jn 6,
For clarification, those who left were still His disciples. Therefore they followed Him, they saw Him perform miracles. They had some belief in Him, just not a saving faith. They wouldn’t completely give in to Him. They didn’t have a saving faith. THAT’S why they left Him. They wanted Jesus on their terms not His.
That’s why I said in an earlier post, those who leave the Church leave Jesus just like those in Jn 6.
Anybody can do the necessary homework to see that it is the Catholic Church that goes back to the beginning. Those who divided, or continue to divide, and / or won’t return to Catholic unity, are in big trouble until they come home…
the pillar and foundation of truth is not you or I. It is
1 Timothy 3:15
The Catholic Church #34
all internal links are operational in that link
S
steve_b
Guest
Okay benhur,
then let’s look at that commentary more closely, specifically the bold highlight
“For example, we now avoid calling other Christians “heretics” or “schismatics,” not because we doubt the material heresy of their doctrines or the objective fact of schism, but because we recognize that the present generation of separated Christians does not necessarily bear culpability for their errors, which are often held in good faith (bona fides). This consideration can be found in Catholic teaching well before the Council, but only now does it receive the prominence it deserves.”
not necessarily culpable ≠ automatically innocent
Why do I say it that way?
From the CCC.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
footnote 59 GS 16.
From that footnote document
“16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”
From vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
That said
It’s why Catholics are to give those in “objective” schism and heresy, which the commentary document clearly says they are in, the information one needs to know about their errors so they can make the right decision and change their trajectory. If they are innocently ignorant of needed facts, they are no longer ignorant of those facts. As the CCC points out, if however, one takes little effort to find out what’s right, or one is blinded by sin, then they won’t respond properly anyway, and they are culpable of their wrong doings. Let’s face it, information today has never in history been so easy to access.
W
Wannano
Guest
I sometimes think the determination of truth is hampered by all the easy access to information.Okay benhur,
then let’s look at that commentary more closely, specifically the bold highlight
“For example, we now avoid calling other Christians “heretics” or “schismatics,” not because we doubt the material heresy of their doctrines or the objective fact of schism, but because we recognize that the present generation of separated Christians does not necessarily bear culpability for their errors, which are often held in good faith (bona fides). This consideration can be found in Catholic teaching well before the Council, but only now does it receive the prominence it deserves.”
not necessarily culpable ≠ automatically innocent
Why do I say it that way?
From the CCC.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
footnote 59 GS 16.
From that footnote document
“16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”
From vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
That said
It’s why Catholics are to give those in “objective” schism and heresy, which the commentary document clearly says they are in, the information one needs to know about their errors so they can make the right decision and change their trajectory. If they are innocently ignorant of needed facts, they are no longer ignorant of those facts. As the CCC points out, if however, one takes little effort to find out what’s right, or one is blinded by sin, then they won’t respond properly anyway, and they are culpable of their wrong doings. Let’s face it, information today has never in history been so easy to access.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I would be very much surprised if that did not sometimes happen.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Wait, does that mean the grass isn’t really greener too?
S
steve_b
Guest
Yet the truth always shines through
B
benhur
Guest
hI STEVE,:ehh: I have to say, benhur,
you’re putting conditions that are not there.
Matthew 16:19 , and if problems arise, one is to take their issues to the Church, and if one won’t listen even to the Church then In Context
I would just add, one doesn’t want to be outside the Church in that case.
We are to be at peace with His Church.
After all, Jesus said (footnotes are operational)
".I will build my church, and the powers of deathc] shall not prevail against it.d] RSVCE
now THAT’S a promise ! agreed?
Beg to differ. The conditions are implicit, not explicit. The higher always takes precedent over the lower even though in the English it sounds ‘‘different’’, that what the church binds/looses is bound in heaven. But clearly heaven rules, and is to rule now on earth thru the church. The church therefore has the condition of being in line with heaven. The church is legitimately binding/loosing only when she is in accord with heaven (just as the Pharisees did from Moses seat). The pharisees were wrong however on some things (doctrinally/leaven) yet they did not effect Israel from fulfilling her destiny in giving salvation to the world. I think we all agree we are to obey the church but not if she puts forth a bad doctrine. We differ in just how the condition of perfect alignment is assured thru the Spirit as prophesied. The CC has built up her definition of just what the Church is to a point that any error can seem to her to bring the house of cards down. Falling is not failing to prevail. Losing a battle is not losing the war.
As to bringing issues before the church , yes (like Acts and the council). The quote most often used however is misused i feel , for it is specifically for personal offenses, not doctrinal (bringing an offending brethren before the church (per Christ) and not going to civil court as Paul exhorts).
Again, when you interject “Catholic” before any reference to “church” in scripture is where schism begins, putting us apart.
Homework is like fire, in that fire can melt wax or harden clay. Seek and ye shall find, it is in the eye of the beholder, this HIStory. It depends on your hearts convictions.
OK I understand your thoughts and remarks. Still think it is contrary to the text and to what CC now says. However if you think the external makes the internal, that baptism saves etc. then it makes your point plausible (they were disciples , probably baptized). Just the text doesn’t talk of that . The text is very clear they were false from the beginning, not called of the Father. The only way for you to to say what you say is to call the sacraments ineffectual. As an example, Luther was baptized and even ordained in Catholic ministry. He therefore was called of the Father and believed at the beginning , if even towards the infancy of his life. But if the baptism and calling were false, not of the Father , ok to your point.
The text doesn’t say “believed” a little. They were not "true " disciples then became false. They were "false’’ from the beginning. If you want to say departing CC, or those not heeding the Catholic call, are not called of the Father and that all there faith is their own “from the beginning”… ok. Many once save always saved say the same thing , that a departing brethren must never have really been saved or a brethren at all.
Again the CC says many P’s have been rightly baptized and born of the spirit , which can not happen if not called from the Father in that baptism, thus separating them from John 6 departers.
B
benhur
Guest
His green pastures are can go beyond any fences.Wait, does that mean the grass isn’t really greener too?
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
Good idea
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur,
Jesus is the one directly giving to Peter the power to bind and loose on earth as it will be bound and loosed in heaven, using the keys Jesus gave him. That authority is real authority. Not imaginary. And it is to be used by him and the Church for teaching and order.
bh:
True, it already is. But think about that. It means everybody else on the outside, isn’t.
bh:
What I crossed out begs the question, how do you legitimately know if /when the Church is in line with heaven or not?
Re: the pharisees
they had authority because they sat on Moses seat. Jesus recognized that succession
Re: Peter and the keys
You are mentally trying to take away the authority Jesus gave Peter with the keys, and then redefine his authority on your terms. That doesn’t follow the Tradition passed down for 2000 years. As I said previously you and I aren’t the pillar and foundation of truth on any of this, the Catholic Church is.
bh:
Jesus and those who followed Him into His Church, fulfilled and are fulfilling that OT destiny.
bh:
Everyone in history who committed heresy and schism thought they were right
bh:
Paul had the following simple directive to Bp Titus in dealing with one who holds to error
Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
bh:
we’re always talking about doctrinal issues coming before the Church. refer back to Paul’s letter to Titus
bh:
Then can you refute this?
#34
bh:
scripture says they were disciples John 6:66
bh:
Sacraments absolutely impart grace. It doesn’t mean a person won’t go against that grace. Just look at Judas.
bh:
In Jn 6, “disciple” is used many times. Sometimes it refers to the 12 , other times to any of Jesus followers. For those disciples who left
John 6:61-67
bh:
You are forgetting free will.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi steve,benhur,
Jesus is the one directly giving to Peter the power to bind and loose on earth as it will be bound and loosed in heaven, using the keys Jesus gave him. That authority is real authority. Not imaginary. And it is to be used by him and the Church for teaching and order.
Agree (keys were also given to other apostles however)…but yes the “church”
Agree
The million dollar question. Unfortunately I think we often, perhaps the CC also, puts forth the answer in a nice neat “box”, even institutionalizes the answer.
Yes, but that succession was fluid since the time of Moses to Jesus’s time. The Pharisees were not there at the base of Mt. Sinai. Christ also says beware of those sitting in the chair for their leaven (bad doctrine).
History tells me different. A bit of CC stuff is *not *2000 years old, including just what it is to be "apostolic’’ or of “Peter”…Various churches have same declarative authority (the message) , as well as disciplinary, as well as in council (well its been a long time since we all attended).
Yet understand your point , as I hope you see others saying the CC shaped its own terms also.
Agreed, but more fluidly than CC purports. A different way of perfection, of prevailing and visibility.
Agree. Paul even says, almost tongue in cheek , there must be divisions so you can show yourself to be “right”. Double edged sword. So indeed truth is at odds from falseness, but sometimes folks define truth so as to be at odds, even justified, from others.
agreed… that is why i partly like hard liners. Grey areas are tough to negotiate in the spirit. Hot or cold is easy.
Always ? Never about personal faults ? Never “confess your faults one to another”?
Well i have as you bring it up. It is your point to prove it, that it is in the scripture.
And ? One can hang out in garage also, but it doesn’t make you a car.
Can you show me where any grace was bestowed on those that "did not believe from the beginning"?
Understand. Not saying they were not labeld “disciples”. Jeus qualifies just what kind they were. They were not “Christian” ever up to then. They "did not believe from the beginning’’. You can’t even apply the sower and the seed parable to them.
No, but you are assuming they changed their will, or even changed anything from when they first followed.
Blessings
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur, it’s good we’re having this discussion
Only one person got the keys. Peter. That’s who the power of the keys comes through.
In Mt 16, Jesus when talking to His apostles, switches from “you” plural when speaking with His apostles , to “you” singular, when talking directly to Peter. Peter alone received the keys.
While the apostles also have the power to bind and loose, (Mt 18:18 ), only the leader, Peter, has the keys.
For space, said in different ways, here are some of my previous answers to others, that came from this particular point
#65 , #69 , #3 , #33 , here’s an oldie
#67bh:
inspite of less than stellar leaders at times in the OT and NT, Jesus promise to His NT Church that He builds on Peter, has all His promises.
The OT examples are types and shadows of what is going to be fulfilled in the NT.
bh:
Re: history
I’ve asked this following question, in many different ways on these forums over the last 12 years and counting, with no answer…YET.
I’ve asked the Orthodox whatever the stripe, or anyone who is interested in giving the answer,
Can you give me the first time in history, properly referenced, where the name “Orthodox Church” first appeared in writing?
I say it that way because when someone is no longer Catholic, no longer under the direction of Peter, then they go against Jesus prayer of perfect unity, they sin against charity, and the corresponding consequences of that are in play. THAT then, in history, is the time, the beginning of their identity in history and in extension their name.
bh:
When the CC is THE CHURCH of history then that is a moot point.
BH:
in that context and example, you willl notice one was confessing to the priest(s) (presbyter) where we get the name priest, who were brought in to visit the sick. That is a sacrament so it is a doctrinal issue.
Jas 5:13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders πρεσβυτέρους ] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.c] 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."
In context they called in the presbuteros, (priests) to visit the sick. THAT’S who they confessed to.
bh:
I gave proof from scripture and Tradition and the ongoing teaching of the Catholic Church properly referenced. #34
Where are your references properly referenced, refuting that?
bh:
how does that refute scripture that says they were disciples John 6:66bh:
I would suggest they were graced to even be with Jesus and considered disciples. Even if the grace they had in the beginning, they later rejected. Remember, God does not take away our free will.
bh:
An apostate is one who had the faith but then rejects it. 2089
bh:
They were disciples then they no longer followed him. What does that say to you?
B
benhur
Guest
Hi steve,benhur, it’s good we’re having this discussion
Only one person got the keys. Peter. That’s who the power of the keys comes through.
In Mt 16, Jesus when talking to His apostles, switches from “you” plural when speaking with His apostles , to “you” singular, when talking directly to Peter. Peter alone received the keys.
While the apostles also have the power to bind and loose, (Mt 18:18 ), only the leader, Peter, has the keys.
me thinks you make much about it. Agree that Peter was given keys, to the kingdom, to bind loose. Jesus also gave directly to the apostles the same function , save mentioning of the keys. It is not in the text that the other apostles get power thru Peter. Christ has the keys and still has the keys. He spoke what He spoke directly to Peter and then directly apostles.
So what of the keys ? Peter was certainly the first of many openings (first sermon, first to gentiles (besides Paul). The preaching with authority (of forgiveness of sins thru the Blood of Christ), which the Israel leaders forfeited, as mentioned by Jesus, was now given to Peter and the apostles , with signs to verify that “key holding”…as in, and many saved.
Beyond that, not sure a singular key holder is needed, especially if the function is actually carried out by many, and multiplied by necessity as Church spread. Having singular key holder would be a restraint, similar to how Jesus was a restraint to more power being available after His departure. Counter intuitive why a paradigm would desire to go back to “one” again.
Tertullian also argues in similar fashion (that Peter had keys but no singular succession).
Blessings
i
B
benhur
Guest
Hi steve,
Well the types as in “rock” all leads to Christ being the rock , both petra and petros. That a church is built on Peter is unusual to any foreshadowing. What is explicitly in texts is the Christ is the rock, the chief cornerstone, and that the twelve apostles are next for our foundation, and finally we are living stones being laid upon those before us. It is not Christ rock , then Peter rock on top of Christ , then eleven apostles on top of Peter, then the rest of us (yet understand the CC interpretation of said one text making Peter rock, but many disagree with that today and" yesterday" ).
Blessings
R
rcwitness
Guest
Jesus does have the Keys. That’s what’s so powerful about His giving them to the Apostles. But He does specifically give them to Peter alone, and separately grants a function of that authority to the other, but only if they are “together” with one another. Is He referring to forgiveness of sins here, or the binding of what constitutes a right or wrong position? Why does 2 or more need to together to forgive a sin? He commissioned them all to have that power when He breathed on them.
I think the Keys are very significant. If He possesses them, but someone uses them on earth, then that is like a “power of attorney” or a Royal Steward, for while the King is away. We all have an amount of Stewardship, but not all have the same. Only the one with the Keys has the greatest authority. But this doesn’t equate to the greatest steward of all. Just the greatest authority. A wise and faithful steward could be the one with least authority.
Hmmm… isn’t the point of the 12 Apostles, to unite the 12 tribes to the One Shepherd? I think the call to one faith, and one judgment, and one mind is huge. It was the prayer of unity thar Jesus prayed to the Father.
I don’t understand that reasoning. I would think that if the keys were significant then, then they would still be significant (probably even more so!).
B
benhur
Guest
Hi steve,
Again quibble much about it , a name. First came Christian then “people of the way”, then “catholic”. Yet "catholic’’ has evolved in meaning. It used to differentiate from heretical teaching but about other matters , not whether Rome was head or Petrine succession at first. Not sure it was first used as an adjective, much like the term ‘‘orthodox’’.
None of these labels are in scripture. Yet they are meaningful, and I do not deny history and meaning to them. Just that you know half of Christendom carries a different history and meaning than what CC gives for herself, and vice versa.
Blessings
S
steve_b
Guest
benhur, I’m quoting my sources, properly referenced, I’m not giving my opinion.
bh:
Did you miss the references showing the differences in that function of binding and loosing that Peter had vs what the others had? Clearly it is referenced and differentiated, in scripture
bh:
I think you may have missed this point.
In post #192 I gave this link ( #3 ) showing scriptural references that there is an obligation by the apostles to follow Peter’s leadership role that was given Him by Jesus. And in extension, that obligation also extends to everyone in the Church as well
As you will see when you read that link, #3
Jesus gave the leadership ἡγούμενος role to Peter over the Apostles ergo leadership over the entire church as well. Looking at the meaning behind that word for leader, (hegeomai) ἡγούμενος
Definition
- **to lead,**a. to go before;
b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: a (royal) governor, viceroy, chief, controlling in counsel, the overseer or leader of Christian churches: official who leads") carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led
What is in bold emphasis, is a definition, it’s not my opinion. It’s a quote from ἡγούμενος. Therefore, Peter holds this position over not just THEM (the other apostles) but the whole Church.
That extends to Peter’s successors because the Church succeeds
Kinda sounds like Jesus instituted the papacy here
bh:
Jesus gave the keys to Peter and in extension his successors
bh:
you’re denying the differences and distinction that Jesus made between Peter and the other apostles.
bh:
Good question
For space, If you are not familiar with the power of the keys given to Peter alone, have a look at these articles. There’s a ton more where that came from…if you’re interested
Power of the Keys
Stewards of the Kingdom
Re: Mt 16 and the keys given to Peter,
for context, that refers back to Isaiah
22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open…"
As chief steward, Peter can do that function on his own because Jesus gave Peter alone the keys to the kingdom.
bh:
Remember what I also said in link #3 from post #192 ?
*]φιλονεικία people DO love to argue about authority
And who is it that Jesus said instigated the argument among the apostles over authority and who is the greatest among THEM? Yep it was Satan.
bh:
can you properly reference that?
S
steve_b
Guest
yes People were called “Christian” and “people of the way”
**The Church **was called ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς , = the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church
bh:
Ignatius was made bishop of Antioch ~68 a.d. He was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. I gave you the following links and many more within this link #34 .
One can ask, how is one to know for sure how to respond and obey the following directive from Ignatius, if “Catholic Church” is as vague and nebulous a concept as you paint it?
Chapter 3. Avoid schismatics
- Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. Epistle to the Philadelphians
Ignatius gives the name of the Church. He only has to say the name once. He doesn’t have to keep repeating himself letter after letter, over and over again. Everybody who knows Ignatius knows he is a Catholic Bishop in the Catholic Church.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
- See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Epistle to the Smyrnæans
May I suggest,
by saying it that way, the appearance is, division is being defended, and valid authority is dismissed. The fall out of that is doctrinal truth is just a matter of personal opinion and not by Church authority. Do I understand that correctly?
- Status