Posted on 05/22/2017 7:51:58 AM PDT by Salvation
Monsignor Pope Ping!
excellent...now let’s wait for the Reinterpretation Train to arrive at the station, and bumble through some retelling of straight forward history to make it seem as little catholic as possible....
I thought the article and the video were both excellent. I concur with your second thought. LOL!
Yes, I agree. This article was a bumbling re-arranging of straightforward history, turning the wider truth of the matters sideways, ending up almost entirely upside down on it's head --- when essentially, it's asserted the Latin Church (as it is now, and has been for say, the last 1200 years or so) is continuing epitome of the earliest ages of the Church.
I wouldn't much care, but I hate to see God's name (and the Holy Spirit) so casually dragged through the mud.
Allllll Aboard !!!!!!!!
But now, if no non-Catholic replies to this post, then that is affirmation from silence. And if they do, it is just someone bumbling through the text. A nice inoculation from discussion, and a game that is rigged so that your point of view prevails either way.
No thanks. I'll not join in with Charles Pope's cunning, and grievous errors.
I much prefer the real truth.
protestants, they’re nothing if not predictable.
no one is saying you cant discuss, i merely pointed out that as soon as history is recounted, and straight forward history of the early church’s catholicity, itz only a matter of time before protestants chime in with the usual hermeneutical nonsense that makes a sham out of church history...
reinterpret
revisionist history
etc etc
lather, rinse, repeat.
yes, the ‘real truth’ as long as it denies a straight forward reading of history....
enjoy your fictionilized netflix version of ‘church history’
Tickets Please....
In other words, your point of view is that the Roman schismatics from 1054 have the only correct view on how to understand this passage, and the Ship of Thebes that constitutes the current RCC is exactly the same as the first century church?
im saying a plain reading of the text this article is about clearly shows the seminal catholicity of the early church, and that folks, like you and others, will always be counted on to come in and bring up some nonsense, such as this most recent reply.
does this article mention anything about 1054?
If the Holy Spirit guides the RCC, does that mean the Pope Francis was put there by the Holy Spirit?
reread what i said and what the article says, it is the SEMINAL church council.
Peter was the head of that council, despite fictionalized attempts to make it seem that he was just ‘one of the guys’ discussing things....
and down to today with the Pope being in charge of all councils, etc.
there has been no adding of doctrine that wasnt in, for a lack of repeating myself, seminal form in the early church.
there has been no change in doctrine, only a fuller understanding.
this sort of, again, hermeneutical nonsense, from protestants, is a greater problem than ever before.
The holy spirit has guided all those bishops down over the eons to pick the right man to lead the church, the holy spirit wouldnt be needed if the church just needed ‘another guy’ to hang out and discuss things with.
So, Pope Francis is the "right man to lead the church"?
I just wanted people to know the truth. There is no caucus on it.
yes, he was chosen. are you saying the infallible Holy Spirit has errored?
Peter was the First Pope. Or this that not in your history book?
I don't accept that the Holy Spirit choses popes. And from what I have read on the RF and elsewher, it seems many Roman Catholics believe the current pope is the wrong man.
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.