Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

Full story: CBC News

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Comments (Page 22,456)

Showing posts 449,101 - 449,120 of512,296
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Dust Storm

Pipestone, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465258
Jul 23, 2013
 
Curiously enough, the ecclesiological problem was never posed as a real issue in the medieval debate between Constantinople and Rome.... only in 1204 ... after the sack of Constantinople did Byzantine theologians begin to discuss seriously the origin of the power which the popes claimed to have.

John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church (New York: Pantheon Books, 1962), p. 209.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465259
Jul 23, 2013
 
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem. I suggest you just scroll past my posts from your patriarchs and bishops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ackShKsZHn4

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465260
Jul 23, 2013
 
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
When Jesus prays to the Father "that they may all be one" the Catholic prayer in response is "yes, let's see if we can work to heal the schism and become one". The Orthodox prayer is "they can shove it where the sun don't shine!"
Thank God for your patriarchs and bishops!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =DoFdou1zM-I

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465261
Jul 23, 2013
 
Dust Storm wrote:
At the time of the ninth century, the Eastern Church’s belief in the Immaculate Conception has numerous support, if not universal consent. Tarasius of Constantinople for example, speaks of Mary as being predestined from the creation of the world and chosen from among all generations that she might be the immaculate domicile of the Word and the immaculate oblation of human nature (In SS. Deiparae Praesentationem, PG 98, 1498; 1482; 1490). Joseph of Hymnographus describes Mary as wholly and entirely without stain (Mariale PG 105, 983). Gregorius Nicomediensis exempts Mary from all stain of sin and from the consequences of the fall of Adam (Oratio 7 in Sanctissimae Deiparae ingressum in templum, PG 100, 1454; 1443).
In the tenth century, Euthymius of Constantinople with Petrus of Argo said that Mary was liberated from the infection of original sin from her conception in the womb of St. Anne (Oratio in conceptionem S. Annae, PG 104, 1351; 1359). Joannes Geometra wrote that Mary was a new creation who was the supreme work of God (Hymnus 2 and 3 in Beatissimam Dei Genetricem, PG 106, 858; 862).
We have a lot to thank to the Eastern Church for developing this doctrine. They had great devotion to Mary, specifically shown in their beautiful Liturgies. While this was going on, there were also Western Fathers that expressed their belief in the Immaculate Conception.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a95.htm

edited by lie detector for space

Indeed, we know that there was a 5th Century feast called the "Immaculate Conception" celebrated in the Syrian Church on December 9th. However, then the Monophysite controversy came along, and many Syrian-speaking Christians embraced the heresy of Monophysitism, which taught that Christ had only one nature (that of God) as opposed to two natures (God and man). At this time, the Greek-speaking Emperor at Constantinople started to replace the native, Syrian-speaking bishops of Antioch and the other Syrian bishoprics with Greek bishops from Constantinople. These Greek bishops were resented by the Syrians, and called "Melchites" (from the Syrian word for "king") because they had been forced upon them by the Emperor.
Well, these Greek bishops had the Greek understanding of Original Sin (an understanding which is different from the Latin and Syrian understanding, and which is still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox Church today). And, because of this, serious theological objections to this feast of Mary's Immaculate Conception came into being. Therefore, the feast was eventually withdrawn from both the Greek and the Syrian Liturgical calendar because of these theological disputes (much like the ones we see later in the 13th century). Yet, this December 9th feast was eventually restored in the East, and is still celebrated today in the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Church as the "Conception of Mary" -- a more "politically correct" title for the wary Byzantines.
Skip to the loo my Darling hahahaha I cant do another 8 posts undoing all the falsehoods in this post. Let your rep speak for itself hahaha Funny, particularly how you turn the the conception of Mary" her birth into an "immaculate conception" LOLOLOL I have attended this feast day many times in our church and nowhere in the Liturgy the Homily etc does it mention the Immaculate Conception. We cant celebrate her birth without the parasite Catholic trying to twist it to support their beliefs. But like Forest Gump says Catholic is as Catholic does. And the Syrians. Thats funny too. They replaced them with reeks . Meanwhile your Pope Chosen Emperor Barbarian Charlemagne was slaughtering converts all over and replacing Bishops with his own people. LOLOLOL You are a funny guy

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465262
Jul 23, 2013
 
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys are unbelievable. You're not the only one who believes their hands are washed once they sling a Bible verse at someone. You guys have been slinging sacred scripture at each other for the last 24hrs trying to prove the false doctrine of Sola Fide.
This proves that half of you are not guided to Biblical truth. Yet, all of you claim to be guided to Biblical truth because you're Born Again.
Clay, I'm not sure what your conversations are like with others here, but can you speak to me with a little respect?
Also, if I follow your logic, can I refute you by pointing out that Orthodox folks here are battling it out with Anthony(and now Dust Storm is jumping in)?
You asked for a verse, and I gave you 1 Jo 2:27. Now you insult me?
OldJG

Rockford, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465263
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Question.....

When does a believer in Jesus Christ receive eternal life?
Dust Storm

Pipestone, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465264
Jul 23, 2013
 
From Hermes site he has been pasting. Yeah, all the Orthodox Ecumenists are devils. Patriarch Barthrolemew what does he know about Orthodoxy he is called the Ecumenist Patriarch. Herme and Sere speak for all the Orthodox. Well maybe not this one, but he is probably not really Orthdox., but then again all the Orthodox have to agree as everyone is equal because that is the way it was always done. ;0
Again, departure from the Apostolic Tradition is "heresy" and, therefore, along with the ancient "sects," the Orthodox Church counts Papists and Protestants as "heretics"—the recent declaration of some Orthodox "ecumenists" notwithstanding. One need only read the sermons and treatises of Orthodox theologians from St. Photius to St. Mark of Ephesus. Likewise, the rejection of Lutheranism by The Three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah II (1567) or the condemnation of "all Western innovations" by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672). The Orthodox Councils of the 18th and 19th century make it clear that Protestants and Papists are heretics as do the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848, 1895). In 1904, the Holy Russian Synod urged Western Christians to come to the Orthodox Church, "the Ark of Salvation." Two years before, the famous Joachim II, the Ecumenical Patriarch declared, "Our desire is that all the heterodox (heretics) shall come into the bosom of the Orthodox Church of Christ which alone is able to give them salvation."

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/heresy.aspx

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465265
Jul 23, 2013
 
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
If you investigate where the Bible came from instead of just saying, "It came from God", then you'll be that much closer to the Church that Jesus Christ started.
Our Lord started a Church. Once you get past the terrible slander being spread about the Catholic Church, it gets easier and easier to see how this Church out lived every single nation on the planet- when emperors and dictators sought to have them exterminated. Its guided to Biblical truth without error.
First of all, you assume I have not investigated this matter.

Augustine wrote:
In the matter of canonical Scriptures he should follow the authority of the greater number of catholic Churches, among which are those which have deserved to have apostolic seats and receive epistles. He will observe this rule concerning canonical Scriptures, that he will prefer those accepted by all catholic Churches to those which some do not accept; among those which are not accepted by all, he should prefer those which are accepted by the largest number of important Churches to those held by a few minor Churches of less authority. If he discovers that some are maintained by the larger number of Churches, others by the Churches of weightiest authority, although this condition is not likely, he should hold them to be of equal value.12
On Christian Doctrine, Book 2 section VIII, trans. by D. W. Roberston, Jr.(New York.: Liberal Arts Press, 1958) p. 41.



This statement shows that Augustine did not look to popes or councils for the solution of the question of the canon. He recognized the variety among churches, and the appropriateness of a plurality of churches.

Observations: First, notice the word "seats"(which is plural). Secondly, notice the word "Churches"(which also is plural).

I have carefully looked at the Canon History, and I will tell you, it doesn't support your position. Even Catholic Historian, Hubert Jedin, said that the more scholarly at the Council of Trent were out voted by the less scholarly(paraphr). You see, there has always been a Two- fold Canon, that which is for doctrine, and that which is not, yet for good spiritual reading and edification. Btw, I can supply quotes and sources for this view.

As a wrap up, the Bible has its origin from God, and man only recognizes, yet not authenticates.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465266
Jul 23, 2013
 
OldJG wrote:
Question.....
When does a believer in Jesus Christ receive eternal life?
At the moment of belief. Jn 5:24 "has"/hath is a present tense possession.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465267
Jul 23, 2013
 
Dust Storm wrote:
At the time of the ninth century, the Eastern Church’s belief in the Immaculate Conception has numerous support, if not universal consent. Tarasius of Constantinople for example, speaks of Mary as being predestined from the creation of the world and chosen from among all generations that she might be the immaculate domicile of the Word and the immaculate oblation of human nature (In SS. Deiparae Praesentationem, PG 98, 1498; 1482; 1490). Joseph of Hymnographus describes Mary as wholly and entirely without stain (Mariale PG 105, 983). Gregorius Nicomediensis exempts Mary from all stain of sin and from the consequences of the fall of Adam (Oratio 7 in Sanctissimae Deiparae ingressum in templum, PG 100, 1454; 1443).
In the tenth century, Euthymius of Constantinople with Petrus of Argo said that Mary was liberated from the infection of original sin from her conception in the womb of St. Anne (Oratio in conceptionem S. Annae, PG 104, 1351; 1359). Joannes Geometra wrote that Mary was a new creation who was the supreme work of God (Hymnus 2 and 3 in Beatissimam Dei Genetricem, PG 106, 858; 862).
We have a lot to thank to the Eastern Church for developing this doctrine. They had great devotion to Mary, specifically shown in their beautiful Liturgies. While this was going on, there were also Western Fathers that expressed their belief in the Immaculate Conception.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a95.htm
Fr. Luigi Gambero notes: "John Damascene often speaks of Mary as a sublime creature, filled with spiritual treasures. Accordingly, his homily on the Nativity, for example, goes so far as to make clear and explicit allusions....to the mystery of the Immaculate Conception." (Mary and the Fathers of the Church [Ignatius Press, 1999], page 401-2)
Indeed, we know that there was a 5th Century feast called the "Immaculate Conception" celebrated in the Syrian Church on December 9th. However, then the Monophysite controversy came along, and many Syrian-speaking Christians embraced the heresy of Monophysitism, which taught that Christ had only one nature (that of God) as opposed to two natures (God and man). At this time, the Greek-speaking Emperor at Constantinople started to replace the native, Syrian-speaking bishops of Antioch and the other Syrian bishoprics with Greek bishops from Constantinople. These Greek bishops were resented by the Syrians, and called "Melchites" (from the Syrian word for "king") because they had been forced upon them by the Emperor.
Well, these Greek bishops had the Greek understanding of Original Sin (an understanding which is different from the Latin and Syrian understanding, and which is still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox Church today). And, because of this, serious theological objections to this feast of Mary's Immaculate Conception came into being. Therefore, the feast was eventually withdrawn from both the Greek and the Syrian Liturgical calendar because of these theological disputes (much like the ones we see later in the 13th century). Yet, this December 9th feast was eventually restored in the East, and is still celebrated today in the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Church as the "Conception of Mary" -- a more "politically correct" title for the wary Byzantines.
Thank you for the catholic version on what the orthodox DO NOT believe in the IC ....lol

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465268
Jul 23, 2013
 
Dust Storm wrote:
At the time of the ninth century, the Eastern Church’s belief in the Immaculate Conception has numerous support, if not universal consent. Tarasius of Constantinople for example, speaks of Mary as being predestined from the creation of the world and chosen from among all generations that she might be the immaculate domicile of the Word and the immaculate oblation of human nature (In SS. Deiparae Praesentationem, PG 98, 1498; 1482; 1490). Joseph of Hymnographus describes Mary as wholly and entirely without stain (Mariale PG 105, 983). Gregorius Nicomediensis exempts Mary from all stain of sin and from the consequences of the fall of Adam (Oratio 7 in Sanctissimae Deiparae ingressum in templum, PG 100, 1454; 1443).
In the tenth century, Euthymius of Constantinople with Petrus of Argo said that Mary was liberated from the infection of original sin from her conception in the womb of St. Anne (Oratio in conceptionem S. Annae, PG 104, 1351; 1359). Joannes Geometra wrote that Mary was a new creation who was the supreme work of God (Hymnus 2 and 3 in Beatissimam Dei Genetricem, PG 106, 858; 862).
We have a lot to thank to the Eastern Church for developing this doctrine. They had great devotion to Mary, specifically shown in their beautiful Liturgies. While this was going on, there were also Western Fathers that expressed their belief in the Immaculate Conception.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a95.htm
Fr. Luigi Gambero notes: "John Damascene often speaks of Mary as a sublime creature, filled with spiritual treasures. Accordingly, his homily on the Nativity, for example, goes so far as to make clear and explicit allusions....to the mystery of the Immaculate Conception." (Mary and the Fathers of the Church [Ignatius Press, 1999], page 401-2)
Indeed, we know that there was a 5th Century feast called the "Immaculate Conception" celebrated in the Syrian Church on December 9th. However, then the Monophysite controversy came along, and many Syrian-speaking Christians embraced the heresy of Monophysitism, which taught that Christ had only one nature (that of God) as opposed to two natures (God and man). At this time, the Greek-speaking Emperor at Constantinople started to replace the native, Syrian-speaking bishops of Antioch and the other Syrian bishoprics with Greek bishops from Constantinople. These Greek bishops were resented by the Syrians, and called "Melchites" (from the Syrian word for "king") because they had been forced upon them by the Emperor.
Well, these Greek bishops had the Greek understanding of Original Sin (an understanding which is different from the Latin and Syrian understanding, and which is still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox Church today). And, because of this, serious theological objections to this feast of Mary's Immaculate Conception came into being. Therefore, the feast was eventually withdrawn from both the Greek and the Syrian Liturgical calendar because of these theological disputes (much like the ones we see later in the 13th century). Yet, this December 9th feast was eventually restored in the East, and is still celebrated today in the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Church as the "Conception of Mary" -- a more "politically correct" title for the wary Byzantines.
From the site EVANGELICAL CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS LOLOLOL

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465269
Jul 23, 2013
 
Hubert Jedin, Catholic historian on Council of Trent(Canon)

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the DOUBTS OF St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene ABOUT THE deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a DISTINCTION in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE of authority when he gives a HIGHER PLACE to those books which are adequate TO PROVE A DOGMA than to those which are READ MERELY FOR edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the BOOK OF WISDOM, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, BUT ARE NOT AUTHENTIC, that is, NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE DOCTRINE. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a TWOFOLD CANON was STILL OPEN and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted ST. JEROME'S VIEW which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.



“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the BOOK OF SIRACH (Ecclesiasticus) AS NON-CANONICAL. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465270
Jul 23, 2013
 

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had alreadyexpressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the CANON OF ST. JEROME, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the LIMITED CANON, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees IN THE "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle FOR THE CANON OF ST. JEROME and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465271
Jul 23, 2013
 
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

(In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)


Gregory the Great -
"With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed" (1 Macc. 6.46).
(Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church,(Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465272
Jul 23, 2013
 

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465273
Jul 23, 2013
 
I will only list the numerous names of those who denied the canonicity of most (if not all) of the apocrypha (i.e. they denied the Roman Catholic canon) throughout the centuries:

Jews Prior to Jamnia
The Talmud
Philo of Alexandria
Jesus ben Sirah
The Essenes
Josephus

Church Fathers
Melito of Sardis
Julius Africanus
Origen
Hilary of Poitiers
Cyril of Jerusalem
Athanasius
Epiphanius
Gregory Nazianzus
Amphilochius
Basil the Great
Rufinus
Jerome
Anastasius of Antioch
Primasius
Nicolas of Lyra
Pope Gregory the Great
John of Damascus

Medieval Writers
Glossa Ordinaria
Cardinal Cajetan
The Venerable Bede
Agobard of Lyons
Alcuin
Walafrid Strabo
Haymo of Halberstadt
Ambrose of Autpert
Radulphus Flavicencius
Hugh of St. Victor
Richard of St. Victor
John of Salisbury
Peter Cellensis
Rupert of Deutz
Honorius of Autun
Peter Comestor
Peter Mauritius
Adam Scotus
Hugh of St. Cher
Philip of Harvengt
Nicholas of Lyra
William of Ockham
Antoninus
Alonso Tostado
Dionysius the Carthusian
Thomas Walden
Jean Driedo
John Ferus
Jacobus Faber Stapulensis
Tiger Lily

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465274
Jul 23, 2013
 
OldJG wrote:
Question.....
When does a believer in Jesus Christ receive eternal life?
Look in your Bible...

1 Thessalonians 4:
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

And...
1 Corinthians 15:
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Plain enough for you?
Simple

Wessington Springs, SD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465275
Jul 23, 2013
 
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Support your belief from Scripture...tell me the following does not teach that Jesus is not God...
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son":(Heb. 1:1-2).
For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18).
Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4)
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Do you understand the spirit world? Do you know the rules there or even if the law of physics as we know them exist? You can not know the spirit world or the properties of it or even prove its existence. How am I to believe that you know that Jesus could not be the son and the father. These verses you reason with are reasoned in the physical word which is the highest level you can reach. We do not know that you are even close to being in command of this level.

“Free gift means FREE”

Since: Jan 09

Chicagoland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465276
Jul 23, 2013
 
Most of the early fathers stated that Mary was not sinless. J.N.D. Kelly notes:

“Tertullian, however, repudiated the suggestion, finding the opening of her womb prophesied in Exodus 13, 2, and Origen followed him and argued that she had needed the purification prescribed by the Law…Irenaeus and Tertullian recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her Son’s rebuke, and Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified…On the other hand, almost all Eastern theologians, so far from acknowledging her spiritual and moral perfection, followed Origen in finding her guilty of human frailties…Only in Syria, where Marian devotion was particularly fervid, do we find Ephraem delineating her as free from every stain, like her Son…But he [Hilary] still regarded the birth as a natural one; he also took it for granted that Mary would have to face God’s judgment for her sins…On the other hand, he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception)…After Ephesus, admittedly, her divine maternity and perpetual virginity seem to have been accepted without question in East and West; but the old doubts about her sinlessness and moral perfection continued to be widely held.”
–J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed.(Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), p.493, 495-498.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#465277
Jul 23, 2013
 
From the 2009 Convention of Orthodox Clergy and Monks

2. We proclaim that Papism is the womb of heresies and fallacies. The teaching of the “Filioque”– that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit AND from the Son – is contrary to everything that Christ Himself taught about the Holy Spirit.

The entire chorus of Fathers, both in Synods and individually, regard Papism as a heresy because apart from the Filioque, it produced a host of other fallacies, such as the primacy and the infallibility of the Pope, the unleavened bread (host), the fires of Purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, created Grace, the purchasing of absolution (indulgences)… it has altered nearly all of the teaching and the practice pertaining to Baptism, Chrismation, the Divine Eucharist and the other Sacraments, and has converted the Church to a secular State

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 449,101 - 449,120 of512,296
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

663 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Divinity Surgeon 680,776
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 min pusherman_ 596,618
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 6 min Dang It 109,755
chat with demi lovato 112 (the real official de... (Jan '09) 9 min Demi Lovato 1,908
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 11 min Liam 38,028
How come the president doesn't use his BIRTH NAME? 16 min who 14
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 19 min ChristINSANITY is EVIL 217,176
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 34 min erectnipples69 276
•••
•••
•••