Unstructured Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jam070406 said:
No, he was dead when they anathematized him.

You were just waiting to pull out that Honorius card weren’t you? How many times is that now?
Click to expand...
did you get that? they always mention the Fathers. but which ones? so far i have not seen one presented to back up their claims.
 
wisdomseeker said:
did you get that? they always mention the Fathers. but which ones? so far i have not seen one presented to back up their claims.
Click to expand...
VARC posted the Sixth Ecumenical Councils anathematizing of Honorius, here or on the Church Father thread of 2nd.

Btw, where is 2nd?
 
wisdomseeker said:
who was St Paul talking to? to whom was he saying these words?
Click to expand...
Did you not see the scripture I provided? It stated "
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face". How are you addressing a crowd while rebuking someone TO HIS FACE? It doesn’t work.
 
jam070406 said:
So in other words Peter was going on his own understanding and not something revealed to him by the Father?
Click to expand...
It would appear so. Paul had to rebuke him for because he was shying away from the gentiles accusing him of hypocrisy.
 
Singinbeauty said:
It would appear so. Paul had to rebuke him for because he was shying away from the gentiles accusing him of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Seems Peter and Honorius had a few things in common eh Isa?
Honorius never got rebuked though, he just died and was declared a heretic.
 
jam070406 said:
Fallacy! I
Click to expand...
In the future, if you accuse me of a fallacious argument you must tell me what type of fallacy I have committed and explain. Any moron can just cry Fallacy!
jam070406 said:
t’s been shown that you must agree with the chair of Peter, which is the See of Rome. The final decision in faith and morals is and always has been from the Apostolic See of Rome.
Click to expand...
Cmon. Fallacy. Begging the Question. When exactly has it been proven, or even reasonably argued, that “you must agree with the chair of Peter, which is the See of Rome”. All I have read thus far is fallacious arguments to support that idea.
jam070406 said:
“Rome has spoken”. Placing yourself outside the Church makes your arguments moot.
Click to expand...
Fallacy Circular Argument. Rome has spoken, so Rome is right.
 
jam070406 said:
Fallacy!
The Bishop of Rome is not just ANY Bishop.

Rome HAS kept the “true faith”
Click to expand...
Fallacy. Begging the question. Twice. Before you just declare something to be true you have to prove it first. You can’t just cry Fallacy because somebody disagrees with your unproven preconceived views.
 
jam070406 said:
Pope = final authority.
Click to expand...
I invite you to attempt to prove your assertion. But remember the rules of reasonable argumentation. I have already made my case that Rome violated the canons of the Church by altering the Creed. So far your only defense has been that “Rome is not just any bishop” or “Rome is the final authority” but you haven’t backed that up with a reasonable argument. So Rome stands convicted of violating the canons of the Church because you (nor 2ndGen) could refute the charge with a reasonable argument, just fallacies.
 
jam070406 said:
Vatican I. You were out to lunch then.
Click to expand...
Vatican I? Cmon jam, you’re just not trying anymore

Fallacy. Circular Argument. Rome is infallible and has universal jurisdiction because Rome says so.

Don’t give up jam. I really want to see you try to prove that Rome=final authority with a reasonable argument
 
wisdomseeker said:
that is how it is you seem to see only what you want to see. even if is not true.

let me answer that for you. fallacy!
Click to expand...
I see everybody is on the “fallacy” bandwagon now. That’s not a fallacy wisdom. Do you guys even know what logical fallacies are? It doesn’t mean anything unless you actually describe the type of fallacy and explain why it is a fallacy. It’s not a synonym for “I disagree”. It is an logical error in the argument. You can’t just cry fallacy! and not explain how or why.

If you need help in identifying logical fallacies just google it.

I’m glad to see I’ve had such an impact on the thread. Hopefully you and jam will brush up on what logical fallacies are so the debate will be fruitful instead of saying…“Fallacy! The Bishop of Rome is always right”. It’s kind of cute to see you guys try that. Like a baby trying to stand up straight but ends up falling on his face. AAAAWW. How cute:D
 
jam070406 said:
Seems Peter and Honorius had a few things in common eh Isa?
Honorius never got rebuked though, he just died and was declared a heretic.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t change the reality that he was a heretic who confirmed his brother patriarch in heresy.
 
wisdomseeker said:
did you get that? they always mention the Fathers. but which ones? so far i have not seen one presented to back up their claims.
Click to expand...
I have done you one better. I have cited the canons of the Catholic Church Herself. An authority higher than any single Father. It is the collective voice of ALL Fathers of the Church.
 
VARC said:
Ultramontanism literally means “over the mountains”. Ultramontanism consists of asserting the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies, including the local bishop. The term was used by French and German bishops to refer to the pope illicitly exetending his authority “over” the Alps. The term has nothing to do with episcopal independence from secular authority.
Click to expand...
I had heard from several sources that, apart from that meaning (with which I do not think the Orthodox actually differ, since I do believe a patriarch has authority over a bishop), that it referred to the movement to end the Avignon papacy. I may have been mistaken.
 
jam070406 said:
Pope = final authority.
Click to expand...
It was not always that way. The final authority for Rome used to be the council. Have you ever heard of the Council of Basel or the Council of Constance? Both reiterated that “the council” is the final authority. But over time, Basel was retracted and Constance was marginalized prepping the way for the new dogma of Vatican I. It is an interesting history.
 
2ndGen said:
I wonder if any of their “popes”, sorry, “patriarchs” ever accepted responsibility for the atrocities they commited against Muslims and Catholics in Kosovo just 16 years ago?

🤷
Click to expand...
1070 wasn’t it?

Gosh, nearly a thousand years ago and some still havn’t got over it! :mad:

Protestants have no chance with that kind of lasting unforgiveness about! :mad:

Yes I know there are Protestants who are just as unforgiving.

Lord have mercy.
 
Singinbeauty said:
Did you not see the scripture I provided? It stated "
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face". How are you addressing a crowd while rebuking someone TO HIS FACE? It doesn’t work.
Click to expand...
do you have the whole store? what did Peter say after Paul rebuked him? was this on past tense?

besides Peter knew what he did was wrong. but he did because of his fellow jews. St Paul did not say anything that St Peter did not already know.
 
VARC said:
I invite you to attempt to prove your assertion. But remember the rules of reasonable argumentation. I have already made my case that Rome violated the canons of the Church by altering the Creed. So far your only defense has been that “Rome is not just any bishop” or “Rome is the final authority” but you haven’t backed that up with a reasonable argument. So Rome stands convicted of violating the canons of the Church because you (nor 2ndGen) could refute the charge with a reasonable argument, just fallacies.
Click to expand...
Just try to understand the words spoken by the Lord. and you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. I ll give you the keys of the Kingdom. (transferring His Power to Peter). this is amazing that is why we have the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top