Unstructured Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isa_Almisry said:
Yeeeees.

No.

You pluralized Churches. Why?

You can make the analogy I guess. Your ultramontanism I know limits your understanding.

Since we are not afflicted by the ultramontanists’ need for autocracy, we don’t need an autocrat.

As the Fathers stated, all Orthodox Catholic bishops are Peter, if you want to phrase it that way. St. Augustine’s quote to that effect (on the power of the keys) is above. Many more could be multiplied.

Now for some math:

Your church has 3 different patriarchs of Antioch as successors of St. Peter there (your church so names them. There was a 4th patriarch of yours, a Latin one, but there was a hiatus of a 1000 years between him and St Peeter: Vatican II did away with him).

Your church has 2 different patriarchs of Alexandria (there used be a 3rd, a Latin one, but he never set foot in Egypt as far as I know, and he was even further removed in time than the Latin at Antioch, and Vatican II did away with him too).

You have 2 patriarchs of Jerusalem, with no connection with St. James, the Brother of God and the first patriarch there. The one, a Latin, came with the Crusades. A Vatican I Father, whom the his flock called al-jazzaar “the Butcher” revived the See the Crusaders set up.

Ah, the unity of Rome. Speaking of which, do you know the history of the Great Western Schism, when there were a couple popes of Rome around, plunging the West into chaos?
Click to expand...
All this research still you have not proved that Peter was not the one chosen to be the leader of the True church. How much more body of evidence do you need?
 
wisdomseeker said:
All this research still you have not proved that Peter was not the one chosen to be the leader of the True church. How much more body of evidence do you need?
Click to expand...
It is for you ultarmontanists to prove your views, not for us disprove it.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
It is for you ultarmontanists to prove your views, not for us disprove it.
Click to expand...
And yet you just brought up the Western schism a few posts back in attempt to disprove it. You can’t even keep up with your own tangents. 🤷
 
Isa_Almisry said:
It is for you ultarmontanists to prove your views, not for us disprove it.
Click to expand...
The truth is that soon or later hopefully sooner than later, you all have to come back and be under the Chair of Peter the Roman CC.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas.

“According to the promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains free from all taint of heresy or deceit in its pontiffs, the Popes, and in the full faith and authority of Peter, and while other churches are shamed by errors, she reigns the solitary Church, unshakably established, imposing silence and closing the mouths of heretics and we, of necessity for our salvation, proclaim and confess this as the pattern of holy, apostolic tradition.”

That’s strong language.
 
Christopher Dawson,

All that Roman world with its power and wealth and culture and corruption sank in the blood and ruin. The flood came and destroyed them all, but the other world, the world of the Apostles and martyrs, the inheritance of the poor survived the downfall of ancient civilization and became the spiritual foundation of a new order", a 2000-year-old spiritual empire that we’re the royal citizens of.

Lord McCauley, a non-Catholic says this:

“There is not and there never was on this earth a work of human policy so well-deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together with the two great ages of human civilization. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday when compared with the line of the supreme pontiffs, the Popes; the line we trace back in an unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the 19th century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the 8th and far beyond the time of Pepin, the august dynasty extends. The republic of Venice is gone and the papacy remains. The papacy remains not in decay, not a mere antique but full of life and youthful vigor. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the earth world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustine and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila the Hun. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all.”
 
2ndGen said:
Chapter and verse in The Holy Bible or a Christian Document to prove your assertion please.

Otherwise, this is “your” opinion and not historical fact.
Click to expand...
Well, you are the undisputed champ at opinion not historical fact here, so is that an ex cathdra pronouncment?

The Tropar (dogmatic hymn) of the Theoophy (Jan. 6: you used to celebrate the Baptism on that day like us, but now that’s been moved, like so many changes in your church).

O Lord when Thou was baptized in the Jordan
the Worship of the Trinity was made manifest (Acts 1:22).

For the Father bore witness to Thee,
and called Thee His beloved Son (John 5:18-38, 8:13-58, Matthew 16:16-7)

And the Spirit in the form of a dove,
Confirmed the truthfulness of His Word.(John 1:30-4,14:15-26, 15:26, 16:5-15 )
I requested a “Doctrine”. A complete and formal and final document professing the reasons one must believe in the subject of the text.
Click to expand...
My, my. Aren’t we demanding. Especially from someone who thinks dumping culled quotes makes an argued case. A heap of brinks doth not an ediface make.
Find it, then get back to me…If you cannot find it before the 4th century, you’re going to have a problem explaining why current Doctrines that weren’t taught by the “original” Apostles and that were “revealed” hundreds of years later must be accepted today by Christianiy.
Click to expand...
And that trounces The Orthodox Church’s claim that only original teachings of The Apostles can be accepted.
Click to expand...
Again, your canned responses to Protestants won’t work here.
By the way, in what “year” was your famous original Creed created? Before 90 AD or after 90AD?
Click to expand...
The Fathers set their seal on the Creed in 381. What’s with the 90 AD date?
 
wisdomseeker said:
Abusive language. offensive. intimidating.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think you’re overreacting a bit
wisdomseeker said:
is it what you do when you loose an argument?
Click to expand...
Actually I’,m still waiting to hear the Catholic argument. All that has been presented so far is fallacy. Make a statement and back it up with evidence. I have done so with Ephesus and none of you catholics could answer the charge.
 
wisdomseeker said:
St. Thomas Aquinas.

“According to the promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains free from all taint of heresy or deceit in its pontiffs, the Popes, and in the full faith and authority of Peter, and while other churches are shamed by errors, she reigns the solitary Church, unshakably established, imposing silence and closing the mouths of heretics and we, of necessity for our salvation, proclaim and confess this as the pattern of holy, apostolic tradition.”

That’s strong language.
Click to expand...
When you are preaching to the choir, you can use strong language.

Wasn’t this the same theologian who denied the immaculate conception?
 
wisdomseeker said:
we did not say Orthodox church left you guys did.
Click to expand...
I believe that 2ndGen asserted that we Orthodox left the CC and started our own church. Neither of you has offered anything but fallacious arguments as proof.
wisdomseeker said:
yourself said that you church did not agree with the CC on the Creed. it does not make sense that we would be the ones to leave since you are the one who did not agree.
Click to expand...
No. I said that my church (The One Holy Apostolic Church) disagreed with the Roman church changing the creed and the Council of Ephesus condemned Rome.
 
wisdomseeker said:
VARK

Quote:

Fallacy. Stacking the deck. Augustine posted this in his retractions:

Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer

He is not a Pope therefore, not all of his beliefs can

Let’s say you are right about Peter’s confession. what does that prove. still that does not prove that Peter is not the chosen one to lead the Church. do you see my point?
Click to expand...
Fallacy. Arguing off the point. The point was that 2ndGen was card stacking by quoting Augustine to prove that Peter was the Rock when Augstine retracted that view.
 
wisdomseeker said:
If the Pope is in charge and he has received a new revelation to be true. then you have no right to depose the Pope and assume his position therefore you cannot claim such an authority.
Click to expand...
I think Isa beat me to this one…🙂
 
jam070406 said:
And yet you just brought up the Western schism a few posts back in attempt to disprove it. You can’t even keep up with your own tangents. 🤷
Click to expand...
The facts of the Great Wewstern Schism (and others like it, it wasn’t the only one, by far), “antipopes” etc. were brought up because the ultramontanists had evidently overlooked them. I was merely providing them missing information for them to make your case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top