I read somewhere that Calvin quoted St. Augustine over 1000 times.
You'll never fully understand the decision of the 4th Lateran Council of 1213 affirming that the Eucharist can only be given by a priest and that salvation is through the Church only, unless one understands the political situation that Rome had been fighting a "Holy War" for 200 years and people were leaving the Church rather than fight.
This has been refuted before. It is a ridiculous view of history. First, St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 100 AD, said ONLY THE BISHOP could confect the Eucharist. Seeing the growth of the Church, the Bishop delegated this authority to priests. Apparently, some were confecting the Eucharist who were not priests. You are seeing conspiracy because you have been trained that way. You have previously told me that the doctrine of the Eucharist was based on the Crusades and the need to get bodies to the front lines! Same with indulgences! Ridiculous. The concepts were BOTH part of the Church well before the Crusades. But since Calvin and his group felt the need to vindicate their leaving the Church of Christ, they had to make the worst accusations against the Church to justify their own pride.
As to salvation outside the Church, this has been amply explained to you. If you desire, I can cut and paste it to you to jog your memory.
You'll never understand the Council of Orange creeds unless you understand the heretical doctrine of John Cassian (a great saint of the Orthodox) and his relationship to Pelegius
You still don't understand the doctrine of the Second Council of Orange... as to St. John Cassian, understand his words from his time and his background, a monk. It is only future men who saw in Cassian's words the need for some correction, as his were not finely nuanced theological words, but practical words meant for monks.
You'll never understand how the western church maintained two sets of doctrines (one based upon Cassian) simply because Cassian did a Pope a favor.
Two doctrines? I would have to see what you are talking about, but this idea is not uncommon. It's called paradoxical teachings. We believe in two doctrines that appear contradictory but are not upon closer examination. For example, God suffered/God is transcendant.
I hate to sound cynical but many of the decisions of Rome isn't based upon the "tradition" of the fathers. Rather its based upon the expedient need of the Church at the time.
Whew, now you just need to study more on what was going on in Constantinople from 350-1000 before you make such narrow accusations. Then, go to Geneva around 1550 and see what was happening. Or in Salem, MA. Or in England. Please. Stop being a hypocrite. Politics plays a role in many religious decisions - and if God is directly responsible for EVERYTHING that man does except the guilt of sin, is it surprising that God would "inspire" man through political machinery?
This conspiracy idea is tiring. Is something evil once you see Rome had something to do with it?
Regards
You have this backwards. Politics should play NO role in religious decisions. Religious decisions should play a role in politics. Paul certainly didn't worry about politics when he stood up to the Jerusalem Council. You're suppose to do what is right, not worry about politics.
Rome isn't evil. There are some good things from the Vatican. They have beautiful artwork.