Posted on 09/01/2015 3:53:50 AM PDT by NYer
“And just WHAT would constitute one of these??”
It doesn’t surprise me that someone who attacks the Catholic faith incessantly is ignorant of what it teaches. Clearly that ignorance in an adult who uses the internet is a chosen and deliberate ignorance.
Since when did the Catholic Church teach that Anglicans are not heretics?
Did the Church change it's mind? Was It wrong at one time?
“So the NEW Anglicans are the GOOD ones; right?”
It DOES surprise me that someone who LOVES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is unwilling to pontificate on what it teaches.
Who are you to judge?
A member of the SCOTUS. I not only judge I make new laws, execute arrest warrants for people practicing their religion and sip tea with 8 other assholes in robes. So there!
“Since when did the Catholic Church teach that Anglicans are not heretics?”
Do you know of even a SINGLE Church document that refers to them as heretics rather than as Anglicans since after the pontificate of Leo XIII?
“Did the Church change it’s mind?”
Nope.
“Was It wrong at one time?”
Nope.
Now, a good, well educated Catholic - one who actually knows Church teaching - would be able to make the proper distinction. And that means you’ll fail to do so, right?
“So the NEW Anglicans are the GOOD ones; right?”
In what post did I say that? Oh, that’s right - no where.
“It DOES surprise me that someone who LOVES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is unwilling to pontificate on what it teaches.”
It DOESN’T surprise me that someone who HATES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is willing to pontificate on what he ignorantly thinks it teaches.
I stand (kneel) rebuked!
LOL
“So the NEW Anglicans are the same as the OLD ones; right?”
It DOESN’T surprise me that someone who HATES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is willing to POST; from Catholic documents; what it SHOWS it teaches!
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
Catholics are generally unaware that they have millions of coreligionists who are not themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, even the term "Roman Catholic" isn't quite right it was actually a derogatory label assigned to us by Anglican Protestants, trying to legitimize their own use of the term "Catholic" over and against that foreign Church loyal to the pope of Rome.
In which post did I say that? Oh, that’s right - none of them.
It DOESN’T surprise me that someone who HATES the Catholic faith unwaveringly posts from Catholic documents while falsely implying those documents automatically mean something in regard to the subject at hand when they don’t.
What's wrong with Pope Leo XIII? Do you not consider him to be a Catholic pope? If not, you're making my point that the Church has digressed from it's past, true teaching.
“What’s wrong with Pope Leo XIII?”
Where did I say there was something wrong with him?
“Do you not consider him to be a Catholic pope?”
Where did I say he was not a Catholic pope? What other kind of pope would he be exactly?
“If not, you’re making my point that the Church has digressed from it’s past, true teaching.”
No and no. Since you were wrongfooted on every question you just asked no one made any point for you. Your constant errors, however, certainly make a point against you.
Then why did you use a Pope Leo XXXIII as benchmark for declaring Anglicans to no longer be heretics? You seem to be inferring that “things have changed” since 1896 A.D.
You could have used Pope Leo X. Why did you choose Leo XIII? Were both Leo’s wrong and Vlad be right? I doubt it; I highly doubt it. As of matter of fact, I know it.
Then, I recommend you find one ASAP!
“Then why did you use a Pope Leo XXXIII as benchmark for declaring Anglicans to no longer be heretics?”
Why not? After all you said, “Since when did the Catholic Church teach that Anglicans are not heretics?”
“You seem to be inferring that “things have changed” since 1896 A.D.”
No, I am simply showing that you repeatedly get things wrong and you are helping me - as always - by completely failing to supply “even a SINGLE Church document that refers to them as heretics rather than as Anglicans since after the pontificate of Leo XIII”.
“You could have used Pope Leo X.”
Why would I? He died before there were any Anglicans. He died in 1521. Again, we see that you repeatedly make errors. It’s as if you have no idea of what you’re talking about any time the topic is about the Catholic faith.
“Why did you choose Leo XIII?”
Why do you think?
“Were both Leo’s wrong and Vlad be right?”
So far - between you and me - I am the only one right and you’re the only one wrong. Wrong in post after post after post after post.
“I doubt it; I highly doubt it. As of matter of fact, I know it.”
Ha! Yeah, you “know it” like Leo X having anything to do with Anglicans who didn’t even exist when Leo lived.
Pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.