To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery. And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.
Do you still wish to defend the following?
The (Pseudo-fictional-fake-phony) Apostolic Constitutions
7,317 posted on
03/09/2011 10:04:20 AM PST by
OLD REGGIE
(I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
To: OLD REGGIE
And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.Thank you for all your good and Scriptural illustrations of how Rome follows the doctrines of men.
Fictitious doctrines of men.
7,318 posted on
03/09/2011 10:18:09 AM PST by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
There is nothing fictional or phony in it. Canons 35 and 36 describe what the Church considered law in 400 AD. Therefore, it is still law.
7,319 posted on
03/09/2011 6:54:52 PM PST by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson