Posted on 05/17/2007 10:08:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
Hey! Kindly leave us out of this discussion. Being neither Catholic nor Protestants, we have no dog in this fight.
That said, the article struck me as mean-spirited. I can just imagine that the author wrote it with a sneer.
What an honour for you to take time out of your busy schedule which appears to be (if Drudge’s headlines count for anything), the legalization of millions of illegal aliens, collusion with the most liberal of House and Senate Democrats, and the further degradation of this country, in order to address the Wikipedia-generated anti Catholic diatribe that you have so finely contributed.
I further thank you for your information on Archdeacon Philpott which comes from a site promoting the spiritual hero Judas Iscariot in the Gnostic Gospels - new on DVD doncha know?
Millions of simple believers dead at the hands of the bishops? Oh, dear. We want more believers, not fewer. And the simpler the better, right?
But we thank you for your contribution, and will consider its worth in the light of the spirit in which it was offered.
We used to sign random people up for that.
Or people that we wanted to bug.
“The devil can NOT perform a miracle”
I understand your fascination with the fathers and your antipathy with sola scriptura, but sometimes scripture does get it right.
Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
As Harnack and many other historians have noted, popes Zephyrinus and Callixtus I, who were Monarchian Modalist heretics were the first Roman bishops to apply Matthew 16:18 to the themselves, and thus the Roman episcopacy, which drew fire from Hippolytus who then became an alternate pope of Rome, Tertullian, Origen and others for their arrogance in trying to subvert the faith. But then the cat was out of the bag and later popes seized upon Matthew 16:18 even though being soundly opposed in their twisting of the passage by 98% of the church fathers.
It should remind you, that is where it came from.(grin)
Wekk, since I was being recruited by the CIA senior year in college and my academic advisor was a Cuban refugee and former CIA operative in Stockholm, near the Cuban embassy, maybe y’all did slip a bug in. Not that if would have done any good, unless you liked listening to a bunch of smart alex poli sci students drinking beer and cracking jokes. hehehe
A sound post on the history of the unscriptural papacy and how it has twisted scripture to support itself in grand style and introduce unscriptural doctrine.
Rev 13:14
Rev 16:14
Rev 19:20
We don,t interpret this the way you do.
These are not are not literal miracles.
They are illusions that mislead people
I am particularly fond of the warning label --
CAUTION: THESE PLASTIC BOBBLEHEADS ARE NOT "RELICS" OR TALISMEN OF ANY SORT, AND MAKE NO CLAIM OF ANY INHERENT GRACE. THEY WILL NOT PERFORM NOR FACILITATE "MIRACLES" FOR WHICH THEIR PRESCRIBED USAGE IS NOT INTENDED. IF IT'S MIRACLES YOU'RE AFTER, TRY OUR OTHER FINE PRODUCTS FOUND HERE...
Thank you, just trying to keep it real. I’m down widdat, ya know bro.
You, too? 8~)
Although I can usually be found dancing on my husband's toes.
“We don,t interpret this the way you do.”
Of course you don’t.
What wasn’t?
Oh really? So where does Irenaeus get off saying that it is a matter of necessity...necessity...that all churches everywhere agree with the Church of Rome. Irenaeus who was never a Roman pontiff but just a lowly bishop of Gaul in around A.D. 170.
A dupe of Zephyrinus and Callixtus, was he? A Monarchian modalist was he?
“What wasnt?”
Depends on the time the pub closed.
LOL. I remember when that changed. Rome can be fast on its feet when it wants to be.
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.