Replies

I conprehend them very well, in context of actual history as opposed to the Roman version that tries to impose a template from later assertions on them where they do not exist.

When will you start demonstrating this comprehension? I haven't noticed any of it.

I am simply giving you the light of truth as opposed to the darkness which dishonest RC apologists have filled you with. And I know that is the case, since you don't know the difference between Montanism and Modalism, and dishonestly continued to mispresent Origen as a "heretic", when in fact Origen repented of the anthropomorphic heresy he fell into, and was restored to full communion, vital points you conveniently omitted in a feeble attempt to impune a source that repudiates the RC position, one that Origen was not alone in but was in agreement with a consensus of the fathers on. I am sorry you cannot see the truth but choose to remain in darkness of lies and misrepresentations.

Origen took a heretical position. Whether or not he was restored to communion is irrelevant to the statement you presented as evidence. And since we're on the subject, which Church - of no primal authority according to you - "restored him to communion"?

one that Origen was not alone in but was in agreement with a consensus of the fathers on.

This is surreal. When are you going to present this "consensus"?

Origen took a heretical position. Whether or not he was restored to communion is irrelevant to the statement you presented as evidence.

The citation from Origen was not heretical and had nothing to do with his being charged with heresy. The ignorance it takes to make such a misrepresentation is beyond coincidence.

When are you going to present this "consensus"?

I already have. I cannot help the fact of the brainwashing which has believed the illusion Rome has painted for Roman Catholics, who must believe and obey Rome without question and on pure blind trust, doing so in fear of man rather than God.

Lets see if you can follow this. Watch the bouncing ball very closely.

Rome stated at Trent and Vatican I, that no one, even Rome, can interpret the Scriptures contrary to the "unanimous teaching of the fathers", yet that is exactly what Rome has done in regards to it's vile interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.

You do know what "unanimou teaching of the fathers" means, don't you? Clearly not.

I have produced at least seven(7) church fathers who interpret Matthew 16:18-19 in the direct opposite position as Rome does, and they all represent the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers on that issue.

Rome has interpreted it contrary to the fathers, violating it's own maxim, doing so for it's own self serving purposes.