Where on earth do I say that Constantine “took the reigns of Christendom” and removed Christ and the Spirit from the Church?
No. I believe in the historic fact of Roman papal development.
Odd argument, to me.Vonsalza:
Does that mean we can ignore the NT today, as Tainted and not Original?
Sounds like a description of John XXIII calling for the Second Vatican Council. Not an infallible act, but a powerful use of Papal authority.
Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, the same source that tells of Constantine’s vision, describes his baptism:
This is sort of pertinent to the topic, portraying the way authority works. But not very, so return to your discussion.
That’s not how logic works. You’re not “right until proven wrong”. But that said, I’ll look at the argument again;
Alright. A few prelim questions so I can understand what you’re really talking about.
I doubt the Gnostics, or other Christian groups whose scriptures were rejected by Rome, would consider the 27 book canon Ecumenical
Sure. But to describe it as a uniquely or specifically “Roman” canon isn’t correct either. Too many people involved. By far.Vonsalza:
I doubt the Gnostics, or other Christian groups whose scriptures were rejected by Rome, would consider the 27 book canon Ecumenical
The Pope is a vicar of Christ in his own right. He usually ministers in unity with the other bishops, but can minister independently. Bishops are successors of the apostles, when ministering in Union with the college of bishops, not in their own right. They can be removed by the Pope, and the current Pope has fired at least one ordinary.
What was the outcome of “contraceptive” to prevent “unwanted” pregnancies and stds?
Now, you could argue that Peter and the other Apostles, as well as Jesus, would have no problem with the contraceptive mentality… but, I’m afraid, you would be wrong.
What was the solution that St. Paul brought to the table: ‘division is good; go ahead and go your own way?’
Did you not specifically stated:
Either I did not understand what you stated above or you stated that it was the Emperor of Rome that made changes to the Body of Christ. As Christ’s stated:
Hence your statement makes Constantine the head of Christ’s Church (you see how it ties to reinventing the Church?); per your words, it is he, not Christ or the Holy Spirit, who made the Body of Christ into what it is: Catholic.
Yet, you quote man as the designer of this “development.”
…where was dogmatic change taking place?
Did he not then proceed to commit all sorts of oppression?
Irrelevant to the point. You indicated that the pope acts with the body of bishops. Here he clearly didn’t.Vonsalza:
What was the outcome of “contraceptive” to prevent “unwanted” pregnancies and stds?
Was it the paradise it was promised?
Sure. As was my point, there.
Not talking about abortion. Talking about birth control in the context of whether the pope can act unilaterally apart from the body of bishops. He clearly can as Catholicism sees it.
Amen. If the bishop of Rome didn’t assume more power than other bishops thought Christ assigned him, he wouldn’t have led the western Church into schism away from the body of Christ (just to put it in the eastern perspective).Vonsalza:
What was the solution that St. Paul brought to the table: ‘division is good; go ahead and go your own way?’
No. the solution to strife and dissention is Unity. When any group divides/splinters/schisms the Body that group is in effect rediscovering/reinventing/redefining/redesigning Christ’s Founded Church.
This is he uphill battle: man wants to wheel “self-autonomy” and claim “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit.
Literally what I said was:
If you take that as meaning he “took the reigns of Christendom” and “removed Christ ans the Spirit from the Church” then that’s just your fanciful, additive interpretation.
Absolutely. Men were the designers of that development.