Posted on 04/11/2016 7:49:06 AM PDT by Salvation
See post #69. Complete with link. Have some read it to you
Good grief.
Apparently you are not reading the various posts. Go check the posts that were sent to ealgeone on the second Pope- Pope Linus in AD 67-76 and check out the line of succession. Of course, no one accepts you to consider this as proof even if a broad spectrum of distinguished historians, scholars, and theologians have done so including several such Protestants who converted to Catholicism.
What is apparent, is that many non-Catholics fish out of a pool of ant-Catholic diatribe written by folks, arm-chair internet theologians, whose works have never been peer evaluated for their historical authenticity but rather by stringing together disparate quotes and writings.
Even the early Church had discussions, disagreements and debates and these were finally settled by the doctrine of infallibility as given by Christ to Peter. This is a historical truth. To Elsie, this is all evidence of “confusion,” just as often as non-Catholics are hopelessly confused about the lives of individual popes with formal doctrine.
As Legatus doesn't want a wall of text I refer to the link.
Elsie has posted the comments from the ECFs that differ with catholicism on this issue.
If something were so clear as steelfish alludes to there wouldn't be this many disagreeing sources.
I'll say this. Keep your focus on Christ and you won't go wrong. Worship Him only. Rely upon Him only.
Then why do so many FR Catholics get away with "You are wrong" as their debating technique?
Really?
Assumption of Mary??
Mary was SINLESS?
It's not the wall, it's the lack of interaction. If we're just going to post links back and forth at each other there's no real point to being here. For instance I brought up the fact that the first signatures at Nicea after the emperor's theologian were the priest-representatives of the bishop of Rome: then everyone else (bishops and archbishops). Nobody at Nicea objected to this... and if there wasn't already SOME sort of Roman primacy you'd expect an objection.
The Church doesn't claim "it's always been the way it is today" because the Church (just like the mustard seed) had to "grow up" (as it were). Nicea had to be called because Arius and the Eusebian party were calling into question the Divinity of Our Lord (using Sacred Scripture as their warrant). Arianism, which was supposed to be put down at Nicea came back to bite the Church in the hindquarters for a long time to come, but I suppose that's a subject for another thread.
Nicea was called by the emperor who wasn't even baptised yet (because they even then believed baptism DID something) and signed off on by priests sent by the Bishop of Rome. What the objection, that a pagan emperor called the leaders of the Church together to iron out their conundrum?
Thank you for affirming that Rome has CLAIMED lots of stuff and the burden of PROOF is still on IT.
How do we KNOW it’s Peter in there?
Too bad the conversations that John had with angel; as recorded in Revelation chapters 1 thru 3; completely blow the 'infallibility' thing right out of the water!
And catholicism’s on encyclopedia admits there is no scriptural support for the immaculate conception. Yet Catholics continue to insist otherwise.
And catholicism’s on encyclopedia admits there is no scriptural support for the immaculate conception. Yet Catholics continue to insist otherwise.
Just because a council says it's ok doesn't mean it's ok. As a example the fifth Marian dogma is being pushed right now by some.
As measured against the Word it is a false teaching as are the other Marian dogmas.
I will have to read up on Nicea and all that happened there.
Right now I'm studying for My Old Testamemt Survey class.
This may be one of the most astounding sentences I've ever read on the RF, someone admitting that he doesn't know it all already. Kudos to you sir.
Oh and for goodness sake don't rely upon just one account, I recommend the wikipedia article on the council of Nicea as a good starting point. But don't stop there.
The Athanasian Creed
Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the CATHOLIC faith.
That just drives you nuts doesn't it?
That just drives you nuts doesn't it?
Probably because it's bogus.
Whoever wishes to be saved must have faith in Christ.
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
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.