45dc6a No.8265 [View All]
Fruits of the reformation
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
fbeb0f No.8426
>>8421
>Strawman?
Nope. You have no point unless you're saying that while it's in scripture, it can't truly be brought out without the magisterium. Otherwise attacks on the trinity could simply be dismissed on the grounds they are wrong in light of scripture, no need for popes, councils or creeds.
>The Creeds, however, leave nothing to the imagination.
It is offensive to say that God was more ambiguous as to His own nature than mere men. In light of scripture, non-trinitarians do not have a leg to stand on. When these creeds were drawn up, they were not proactive but reactive in nature. These councils did not assemble to progress, advance or evolve doctrine, but to set forth what had already been believed. The creeds were merely a formal definition and declaration of beliefs that were not held on the basis of any creed that did not yet exist, but on the sole basis of God's word. This was necessary to exclude heretics from the church by instituting a test in the form of the creeds. An Arian could not without lying recite the nicene creed.
>Most Protestants believe in the Nicene Creed, so both?
No, anon. The nicene creed is not the magisterium of Rome, first of all, but it doesn't really matter because the nicene creed is not the basis of our faith in the trinity, scripture alone is. The creeds are still reactive for us, they are the content of our belief not the cause thereof.
>In Acts 16:4 we can see dogmas being proclaimed to the whole Church.
The council of Jerusalem was revelatory and was led by actual apostles some of whom actually wrote books of scripture. It is not similar to papal councils.
>Can you find me a Church Father who believed that "born again" didn't mean baptism? That believed repentance was works? Sola Deo Gloria?
I take it that's a no, then?
>It's a divinely revealed truth
Where is it revealed?
>that was believed during Apostolic times
Which apostles and which early church fathers said that Mary was completely free from all taint of original sin?
>It's not like Blessed Pius IX just created it out of thin air, with zero justification
I know. It was created in the 12th century.
>2 Peter 1:20
That would include your magisterium.
>Many Protestants can't even agree on the Five Solas anymore
What are you defining as Protestant?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8433
>>8422
>You'd be surprised.
In truth, I misspoke. While some do indeed say we are justified by faith, what came to be know as Sola Fide is not clearly articulated.
>the testimony of other patristic sources show their canons fall below the standard of Trent
There are people who thought the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture, that doesn't mean that the Hippo canon is false.
>>8426
>it can't truly be brought out without the magisterium.
I didn't really say that. What I did say is what you affirm, that there is no way a heretic can recite a Creed and maintain his view.
>they are wrong in light of scripture
That doesn't work, as the example of this own thread shows.
>These councils did not assemble to progress, advance or evolve doctrine, but to set forth what had already been believed
True.
>sole basis of God's word
Wrong, Athanasius for example doesn't solely use Scripture contra Arianism.
>It is not similar to papal councils
These are councils by the direct successors of the Apostles.
>Where is it revealed?
In Scripture, for starters. Genesis 3:15 talks about the woman who has perfect enmity with the devil. You can see the exact narrative retold in Apocalypse 12. Typo-logically speaking, she is the Ark of the New Covenant, which makes her the holiest creation save for God Himself. Also, show me in the Bible where the Blessed Virgin sinned.
>Which apostles and which early church fathers said that Mary was completely free from all taint of original sin?
http://philvaz.com/apologetics/a115.htm
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm
St Luke painted a picture of the Virgin and St Thomas carried it all the way to India, where it is today. It originates from apostolic times, they have tested it.
>That would include your magisterium.
Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and teaches with His authority, anything the Church says, Jesus says.
“He who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.”
The exact conditions for magisterial teaching (Vatican I likely would have addressed it if it was allowed to finish) say that if something contradicts Scripture, the Fathers, or an earlier Papal decree/Council, it cannot be authentic magisterium.
>What are you defining as Protestant?
Salvation through faith alone.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ae0b4b No.8502
>>8370
>Most of your Pharisaical screed is pointless,
The Pharisees rejected scripture in order to hold their own traditions, per Mark 7:7-13.
>I affirm the Creeds, and thus, the Trinity.
The implication being, however, that scripture, that is God's word, is insufficient.
>but non-Trinitarians still twist Scripture around to deny the Trinity.
If they would twist Scripture how do you think man's feeble attempts would fare? And as the Lord said (John 15:20) "The servant is not greater than his Lord," and, "if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."
The only need to digress stems from one of two things, either the incapacity to articulate scripture or a need to augment personal doctrines over and above it. The latter case is no different than the Pharisees as per Mark 7:7-13.
When I see your posts I see an epistemology that rejects scriptural, word of God evidence out of hand. It only wants fallible, twistible evidence.
And it steps in as something "greater than God" so to speak. That's why it even calls itself inspired. It says listen to it instead of the Holy Spirit. It calls itself Christ and simultaneously rejects his Word out of hand.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8528
>>8502
No, they claimed that their adherence to the Law pardoned their sanctimonious behavior. It's why our Lord says "Judge not…" (the next part is what liberals eschew) "…lest ye be judged" They wanted to find something our Lord did that they could blame Him for. Like when they ask if it's lawful to heal on the Sabbath. The man had edema, a deadly disease. He was put right in front of Him by the Pharisees, as a sort of quasi trap. He also gives them a great question: which of you would not save an ox that had fallen into a pit? Obviously such a task was labor intensive, but they'd do it, ten times over. There are modern Jews who literally have Gentiles turning light switches on and off for them on the Sabbath. That's a penultimate example of the behavior of Pharisees, which became Talmudism.
A contemporary example would be someone telling you to keep off the grass even though your house was on fire.
>The implication being, however, that scripture, that is God's word, is insufficient.
Heretics twist Scripture to their needs (there has been a non-Trinitarian posting often around here), but they can't recite a Creed and maintain a Christological error (subordinationism, for example). We have them for a reason.
>Mark 7:7-13
Catholic traditions can be traced to the Apostolic Fathers, this is well documented. The Fathers taught by Blessed John the Apostle fell into traditions of man? I don't have enough faith to believe so.
>It only wants fallible, twistible evidence.
The Bible itself says there are people who twist the Word of God.
>It says listen to it instead of the Holy Spirit
God promised the Holy Ghost would lead us into all truth. Was there a stipulation that this only includes when we read Scripture?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5fdc79 No.8530
>>8422
The funny thing is the Beggars all post on Jerome just fails when engaging with Matt's defence of him accepting the deuterocanon. This is because in most if not all citations provided, it's literally within the context where other Inspired books are cited which funnily enough, the Protestant missed out completely despite it being obvious. Given such way of using them and even classifying them as Scripture, Jerome isnt denying Inspiration. He is simply following what the East done for centuries, accepting their Inspiration but placing them subordinate to the other Canon books.
This isnt the same as the Protestant view because the Protestant deny their Inspiration or use in the contexts Jerome cites. In fact Prots dont even call Deuterocanon, Scripture at all.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5fdc79 No.8531
>>8413
The Church Fathers and the Bible are both so far away from Reformed theology, it's obvious you only been reading Reformed blogs rather than the actual works themselves. And I can prove this to you. Just give one issue on salvation, sacraments, free will or one father and we can discuss in more detail. It"s easier that way than comprehensive prooftexts given in ignorance to context
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
72df63 No.8544
>>8528
>Catholic traditions can be traced to the Apostolic Fathers, this is well documented.
When did the doctrine of Rome's Bishop being infallible first show up?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8545
>>8544
Scripture (Ephesians 5:27, Luke 22:32, etc), and the actions of Popes themselves.
https://erickybarra.org/2017/03/14/church-fathers-papal-infallibility/
>Being stuck between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I knew that much of deciding factors would depend on identifying which of the two was a faithful continuation of the ecclesial primitiva (the primitive Church). It was clear to me that the doctrine of the Filioque, Papal Supremacy (even infallibility), purgatory, and other distinctively Catholic doctrines (these being only roughly reconciled with Eastern theology) were taught by the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers of the Church. For example, it is admitted by non-Catholic historians that Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), a hero in Eastern Christianity to this day, held to the basic tenets which theologically ground the doctrines of Papal supremacy and infallibility codified at the Council of Vatican I (1870).
>Of course, he was not alone in this, and we even have major heroes of the East, such as St Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore the Studite monastic, St. Nikiphorus of Constantinople, and many others, who all held beliefs which all but say in explicit terms what the Vatican Council taught. In addition, it was notable how all 7 of the Ecumenical Councils depended largely on the defense of them by the prelates of the Apostolic See of Rome, even against the fall outs which occurred in the Eastern churches. Almost all Eastern Orthodox Christians today admit that Rome was the orthodox Head and Primate of the universal Church for the first 1,000 years. Well, how likely would it be that said Head and Primate would be right on everything but the rationale for his authority?
>Consequently, as much as I love Eastern Christianity, and long to be able to take part in it, I was forced to choose. Even to this day, my heart remains heavy in the long for re-union with the Orthodox Churches, as well as the other families of Eastern Christianity. Who can deny that the Latin West has suffered from the separation in the realm of monasticism, spirituality, and disciplinary vigor? How can one not feel the pains of Christ in our Coptic separated-brethren who suffer daily for the name of Christ?
>Upon reverting into the Catholic Church, I can’t say that my expectations were met. That should not have been surprising. I soon learned that the Catholic Church, true as it is, was not the place where one saw the end of divisive scandal, indifferentism, religious relativism, and a host of other tactful darts from the enemy. It was fairly quickly that I digested the fact that part of this journey would require me to learn how to navigate the rough waters by sticking to the rock solid doctrine and practice which has, by the promise of God, continued in the Church
>Despite the many evil forces within which masquerade as Catholic truth. I am sure St. Paul, I believe, learned something similar to this. How often would he reflect, it seems, on how unseemly God can be. He commands one thing, but plans a life which seems like it is providentially designed to frustrate that very thing. The purpose of this is for us to “in hope against hope” (Rom 4:17-22), persevere in faith, giving glory to God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a427ea No.8546
>>8545
Q: When did the doctrine of Rome's Bishop being infallible show up? (proof of papal infallibility)
A 1: Ephesians 5:27, Luke 22:32
A 2: Papal decree
A 1 Analysis:
>25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her;
>26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
>27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.
>28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
(Eph. 5:25-28 NAS)
The church (read: those who are saved) are made holy by the work of Christ. Completely unrelated to the doctrine of papal infallibility.
>31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;
>32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
(Lk. 22:31-32 NAS)
Simon Peter was enabled through Christ's prayer to become a strengthening agent to his brothers (spiritual brothers, Christians) after he was to deny Christ.
Conclusion: Reading papal infallibilty in these passages is esegesis.
A 2 Analysis:
Declaration of infallibility by the purported infallible actor is completely untrustworthy. It's unverifiable.
Conclusion: circular reasoning
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8548
>>8546
Isaiah 22:22, in the context of Matthew 16:18? The fact that Peter, like David, stands up and addresses everyone in Acts 15? John 21:15? It’s Peter, Peter’s unfailing faith, Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to Peter; the prominence of Peter’s name in Scripture (the Apostles AND Peter), Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas. Furthermore, we can just look at the actions of the successors of Saint Peter, and we can see the Papacy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a427ea No.8549
>>8548
The onus is on you to prove it, not vaguely reference events. Also remember that we're talking about papal infallibility, not the premise of the office of the papacy
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8550
>>8548
>>8549
There are various arguments used against the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18, but all are difficult to argue in favor of.
First of all, Jesus had just gathered all His disciples, and He chose to change Peter's name alone, (Abraham also had his name changed, and he was also called called the "rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)–one argument used against Peter being the foundation of the Church is how 1 Corinthians 3:11 refers to Jesus as the foundation. This is false precisely because the Apostles are also called twelve foundations (Apocalypse 21:14). What this means is that all authority comes from Christ, the Church itself comes from Christ. Well, Peter's authority comes from Christ. He established these things on Peter, so what's setup on Peter is a foundation on Christ, that does not mean He didn't establish an office which would be the rock on which the Church is built. He gives His keys (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18) to Peter, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, (John 10:14) but He gives that responsibility to Peter also (John 21-15-17), to say that he then points to Peter and calls him "little rock" (Petros is the masculine version of Petra, the reason Petros is used and not Petra (In Aramaic it was "thou art Kephas and upon this Kephas) is to preserve the play on words, not to indicate that Jesus called him little rock) and point to Himself and says "upon this rock" makes no sense, as right after, He gives Him the keys which He possesses (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18, Apocalypse 9:1, Apocalypse 20:1, prophesied in Isaiah 22:22), and if you pay attention to the wording, it's indicating an office that is established, not something that passes away with Peter. Understanding what the Keys are and Isaiah 22:22 indicate infallibility, and, again, we literally just have to point to early Popes like Leo the Great to see what Papal infallibility/Supremacy is. And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for Him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra. And do you believe that those who wrote the Bible wrote infallibly? If so, it's not far-fetched to say He can give the Prime Minister infallibility under certain circumstances.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a427ea No.8551
>>8550
>it's not far-fetched to say He can give the Prime Minister infallibility under certain circumstances.
This is the only on-topic sentence in that word salad, and it's a strawman argument. I don't believe that it's illogical that a pope could speak infallibly, I have an absence of cause to believe in papal infallibility and I see an incompatibility of the doctrine with written scripture regarding the closure of the canon and sufficiency of scripture.
I am asking you for the exegetial case for papal infallibility, not the papacy. These are different doctrines. Papal infallibility does not necessarily follow from the office of the papacy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8552
>>8551
So you believe that the leader of the flock can lead his sheep into error? That makes no sense. Sure, what I wrote was a bit of a screed (I was typing as fast as possible), but I did give proofs of infallibility.
>He gives His keys (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18) to Peter, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, (John 10:14) but He gives that responsibility to Peter also (John 21-15-17)
>Understanding what the Keys are and Isaiah 22:22 indicate infallibility, and, again, we literally just have to point to early Popes like Leo the Great to see what Papal infallibility/Supremacy is.
>And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for Him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra.
>with written scripture regarding the closure of the canon
You reject the Canon of Hippo, for the Protestant canon.
>sufficiency of scripture
The Bible doesn't say so. The very last words of the last book of the Bible written (Gospel of John) state that nothing could contain all that Jesus did. Plus, He also did many things His last 40 days on Earth, and you'd think it'd be important to include much more if God wanted us to have a Koran. Of what it does say Jesus did before His ascension, He gives the power of hearing confessions to the Apostles, and He tells Peter to lead the flock, and then John says that no Book could contain everything Jesus did. Hmm.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8555
>>8554
And you're ignoring it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a427ea No.8556
>>8552
You're saying that the binding and loosing refers to teaching, not salvation of persons?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8557
>>8556
Yes. The Apostles (Bishops) are given the same power, in the form of Councils. Your understanding is alien to the Church, before Luther.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a427ea No.8558
Don't you use the opposite understanding of "binding and loosing" when you argue for extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8559
>>8558
Not sure what you mean. EENS is something that has always been believed, taught, articulated by the Fathers, and our Lord Himself. As the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and the new Ark of Noah. God is infinite and of infinite perfection, His justice is infinitely perfect. If he has decreed a truth such as, "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Then that is a perfect truth and justice. It therefore, serves as a rule for us, which we must believe is indeed perfect, just and true. If he were to make exceptions to this, that would be a sign that the Truth or Rule was not perfect in all ways. That cannot be. It was stated in language that man can comprehend but its source is the infinite mind of God. Councils have defined it as well, and the Church battled against Pelagianism, probably one of the major errors of today.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, EX CATHEDRA: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
80b2e6 No.8560
>>8559
The basis for the eens case is the exclusive power granted to the roman church understood in the keys, where binding and loosing means disciplinary and soteriological power, not power to make decree.
This is counter to what you're not claiming about binding and loosing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
80b2e6 No.8561
>>8560
To what you're not claiming*
I'm asking what the Roman view is of binding and loosing because I'm seeing a contradiction. I would be interested to see a church document making the connection that you are about Isaiah 22 meaning infallibility.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8562
>>8560
>exclusive power granted to the roman church
The exclusive power is technically with Peter, and his Chair, but all Bishops are successors of the Apostles, and they also have the power to bind and loose (more accurately, define and dispense), in the context of a Council called by a Pope. If you are not in the Church that succeeds the Apostles (more accurately: with the Prince of the Apostles). You are outside the Ecclesia Jesus established. You don't suppose Jesus appointed some secret Bishops after His twelve? No, right? So, if you're not following those who succeed the Apostles, you're not following Jesus, the Mystical Body of Christ, which teaches with His authority, guided by the Holy Ghost… "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican", "He who listens to you listens to me. He who rejects you rejects me and the one who sent me." Binding and loosing does not just mean one thing, which is what your argument seems to presuppose. For example, the Fathers teach it also means the Sacrament of Confession (2 Corinthians 5:18-20, John 20:21-22). Every priest has the authority of Christ to “loose” (absolve) penitents from their sins.
>The basis for the eens case
And I think this is a bit disingenuous. Scripture teaches EENS, as I pointed out above.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
80b2e6 No.8568
>>8562
We are straying from topic. I'm not arguing against the papacy or against eens, but I reject your case on both.
I'm meaning to say that I object to your use of Isa 22 in such a way where you connect it to Peters office, and the powers of binding and loosing refer to making declarations. This is again eisegesis, and it's not even consistent with the Roman Catholic understanding of binding and loosing. This is another direction to try and prove papal infallibility from scripture that does not carry.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83997e No.8570
>>8562
>The exclusive power is technically with Peter
Matthew 18:18 is not addressed exclusively to Peter.
>and his Chair
How did the chair receive power when it did not yet exist?
>more accurately, define and dispense
The verbs bind and loose are clearly part of the 'key' analogy. What object does one use in conjunction with keys to bind or loose? Chains. The proper understanding of the keys is that the power of the keys is nothing other than the gospel itself, the power to keep them bound to their sin, or to loose them from it. The moment when the apostles receive the keys is the moment where they are appointed as ministers of the word and sacrament, particularly clear from John's rendition in John 20:23, where "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" is given as "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld".
What the keys certainly are not in scripture, is epistemic.
>in the context of a Council called by a Pope
Is a council not called by the pope authoritative?
If the answer is yes, then how, if the bishops derive their power from the pope? If no, then are the ecumenical councils not authoritative, since they were called by emperors, not popes?
>more accurately: with the Prince of the Apostles
How is there a prince of the apostles when Christ declared there was no primacy amongst them in Luke 22:24-26, and denied them any mastery over each other in Matthew 23:8?
>So, if you're not following those who succeed the Apostles, you're not following Jesus
Mark 9:38-41, need I say more?
>Every priest has the authority of Christ to “loose” (absolve) penitents from their sins
This is the spirit of Antichrist. While ministers certainly have the authority to loose men from their sins, it is not the authority of Christ, who properly releases men from the bondage of sin, whereas His ministers only do so declaratively and improperly.
>Scripture teaches EENS, as I pointed out above.
I don't know where you think you did that, I see nothing that could be construed as that, but in response to the claim that extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that is, the idea that one must be a member of an earthly organization to be saved, is scriptural, I cite Matthew 18:20, which is clear enough to stand on its own. The Roman defense, that one is not following Jesus unless they are following the pope since Jesus allegedly appointed the pope is inane, essentially hand-waving the scripture away by redefining the categories. Christ does not say "where two or three gather in the pope's name", but "in my name". If this redefinition is acceptable, then eens is made automatically correct, since any conceivable proof against it could simply be dismissed in the exact same way, the argument relies on circular logic and nullifies the verse.
>>8557
>Your understanding is alien to the Church, before Luther.
False. For example John Chrysostom understood the promise thusly: "the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world" (Homily 54 on Matthew).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8572
>>8570
>Matthew 18:18 is not addressed exclusively to Peter.
Right. Bishops can bind and loose, but Peter has the Keys, which belong to Jesus (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18), given to him, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22.
>How did the chair receive power when it did not yet exist?
Pay attention to the wording. Jesus establishes an office on Peter.
>The proper understanding of the keys is that the power of the keys is nothing other than the gospel itself, the power to keep them bound to their sin, or to loose them from it.
That's one understanding, and the Fathers teach that to "bind" means defining doctrine, and to "loose" means earthy regulations, like Church practices.
>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld
Yes, it's also alluding to the Sacrament of Confession. Good point.
>If the answer is yes, then how, if the bishops derive their power from the pope
They get their power to bind and loose from Jesus. The Pope has the keys.
>declared there was no primacy amongst them in Luke 22:24-26
Care to scroll up? Most of what you claim here can be answered by my previous posts in this thread.
>And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for Him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra.
>denied them any mastery over each other in Matthew 23:8
Have you ever debated a Catholic? This point is null and void.
>This is the spirit of Antichrist
A priest is an Alter Christus.
>member of an earthly organization
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and it was established by Christ Himself, and led by the Holy Ghost. You follow a man.
>Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and teaches with His authority, anything the Church says, Jesus says.
>“He who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.”
https://catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com/2016/03/painful-truth-outside-church-there-is.html
https://catholicism.org/eens-fathers.html
>essentially hand-waving the scripture away by redefining the categories
Ephesians 4:5
>the argument relies on circular logic and nullifies the verse.
Bible alone relies on circular logic.
>John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom was a Catholic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d6b0cd No.8577
>>8572
>>essentially hand-waving the scripture away by redefining the categories
>Ephesians 4:5
>>the argument relies on circular logic and nullifies the verse.
>Bible alone relies on circular logic.
>>John Chrysostom
>John Chrysostom was a Catholic.
None of these are arguments
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d6b0cd No.8578
>>8572
>the Fathers teach that to "bind" means defining doctrine, and to "loose" means earthy regulations, like Church practices.
Show us
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83997e No.8579
>>8572
Wow, this response was really bad
>Bishops can bind and loose, but Peter has the Keys
The idea that the function of the keys can be separated from the keys themselves is so absurd on its face that it requires no refutation.
>as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22
Where does Isaiah 22:22 say that there would be a man named Peter and he would receive keys?
>Jesus establishes an office on Peter
Where does the text say that?
>the Fathers teach
Which ones?
>Yes, it's also alluding to the Sacrament of Confession. Good point.
There is no such thing as the sacrament of confession
>They get their power to bind and loose from Jesus
Then they maintain this power apart from the pope, and are not inferior to the pope
>Most of what you claim here can be answered by my previous posts in this thread
Wrong.
>Jesus affirm Peter
Where in Luke 22:24-26 does Jesus identify Peter as the greatest? Maybe it's a translational difference, mine says "But not so with you"
>He prays for Him alone
Where does it say He prayed for Peter alone? What, did He just not care about the others?
>Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure
The difference Jesus describes is that His apostles do not exercise lordship over each other. What you're saying is they do, Peter exercises lordship over the others. What an incredible example of the blindness human tradition inflicts; you have totally inverted Jesus' words, you have Him teaching the exact opposite of what He says.
>This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel
Where does Luke 22 refer to "the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel"?
>therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra.
Where does Luke 22 refer to "Peter's Chair" or "Ex Cathedra teaching"?
>Have you ever debated a Catholic? This point is null and void.
Not an argument.
>Alter Christus
Antichristus.
>The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and it was established by Christ Himself, and led by the Holy Ghost.
Yes it is, for once you are correct, it has nothing to do with an earthly institution like the Roman Catholic Church.
>You follow a man.
A charge which holds no weight and is most ironic coming from a papist.
>anything the Church says, Jesus says
And they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
>Ephesians 4:5
Your lord might be the pope, but he is not the lord of any Christian. Christian unity is to be found in the person of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not in the Antichrist the pope.
>Bible alone relies on circular logic.
Not an argument.
>John Chrysostom was a Catholic.
Not an argument.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8580
>>8579
>The idea that the function of the keys can be separated from the keys themselves is so absurd on its face that it requires no refutation.
You're blustering.
>Where does Isaiah 22:22 say that there would be a man named Peter and he would receive keys?
Do the Messianic prophesies in Daniel and Isaiah mention the name Jesus?
>There is no such thing as the sacrament of confession
There are 7 Sacraments of Christ's Church.
>Then they maintain this power apart from the pope, and are not inferior to the pope
They do not have the Keys, which belong to Jesus, as I pointed out before. Why don't you answer?
>Wrong.
True!
>Where in Luke 22
Luke 22:32
>What an incredible example of the blindness human tradition inflicts
What authority do you have to reject the Hippo canon if Scripture is enough for salvation?
>the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel
That's Peter's office, just like what David had.
>Antichristus.
Prots are the plague of locusts mentioned in the Apocalypse.
>it has nothing to do with an earthly institution like the Roman Catholic Church.
The Roman Church is Divine in its origins.
>A charge which holds no weight and is most ironic coming from a papist.
It hold plenty of weight, because you have tore the Bible out of the Church, to say that the Church has failed but the Bible hasn't is fatuous and denies Christ's promise. Now you're stuck with Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, and Jewish Messianism.
>Antichrist the pope
DA ROMAN RELIGION IS DA ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SAYS RAIGHT HERE IN ME KJV
Ephesians 4:5 proves your playdough Christianity is false. One Lord, One faith, One baptism, and a million Protestants sects, or… One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church?
>Bible alone relies on circular logic
>Not an argument.
It's an assertion that you don't care to respond to. The Bible is a product of the Church.
>John Chrysostom
>Not an argument.
https://eucharistjesuswithus.blogspot.com/2012/09/homily-from-st-john-chrysostom-c347-407.html
https://theradtrad.blogspot.com/2012/10/st-john-chrysostom-on-baptism.html
https://www.homeofthemother.org/en/resources/virgin-mary/fathers/8163-st-john-chry
Wow, the Real Presence, veneration of the Mother of God, and baptismal regeneration? Perish at the thought!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83997e No.8581
>>8580
Okay, I see you've resorted to pure shitposting, so I accept your concession.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8582
>>8581
All I did that was questionable was lampoon the glib "Pope is Antichrist" comment. Luther thought the same thing, but the institution is still here, because it is of God. Lutheranism now has tranny bishops, last I heard.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83997e No.8583
>>8582
Today I will remind them
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8584
>>8583
I could just blithely say
>Okay, I see you've resorted to pure shitposting, so I accept your concession.
But I'll answer. Francis is a Novus Ordite through and through, his entire formation was during the Vatican II revolution. The man has never been exposed to Catholicism. What do you expect? Regardless, him and his fellow modernists STILL say that females should not become priests, that contraception is intrinsically evil, that gay marriage is profane, so on and so forth. And I am not bound under pain of sin to listen when he talks about such things, only when he teaches Ex Cathedra.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83997e No.8585
>>8584
>I could just blithely say
No you couldn't, we're not debating anymore you already capitulated when shitposting was the only argument you could muster. You might not think you were shitposting but you were, since nothing you said contributed to the discussion or adressed my arguments
>The man has never been exposed to Catholicism
And yet he's the center of your worldview. Really makes me think
>And I am not bound under pain of sin to listen when he talks about such things
Wow anon you're doing personal interpretation?! You prot, you need to defer to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
98f30a No.8586
>>8585
I had a similar debate with another guy in this same thread. Fact is, your tranny Lutherans are "saved" according to Sola Fide, whereas all these "Catholics" have incurred a latae sententiae excommunication, and will go to hell.
>And yet he's the center of your worldview
You're making the same mistake Sedevacantists make. The Pope is not the rule of faith, nor does he have the power to define infallibilty "new" doctrine.
>Wow anon you're doing personal interpretation
No, I'm just restating that it's impossible for something that contradicts Scripture, the Fathers, or an earlier Papal decree/Council, to be authentic magisterium. Francis insists that everything he does is magisterium, that's not how it works.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
98f30a No.8587
>>8586
A more accurate statistic in terms of Catholicity.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e12033 No.8588
>>8586
Neither tranny lutherans nor Roman catholics are saved. The tranny lutherans evidence that they are unrepentant (by being tranny), and Roman Catholics place their hope in a false gospel.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8589
>>8588
Looks like someone doesn't even understand his own doctrine of forensic justification/alien righteousness. Shoo shoo.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e12033 No.8590
>>8589
What did I say that is inconsistent with forensic justification?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83997e No.8591
>>8589
Why are ignorant people always the most arrogant? I bet you watched Peter Dimond's documentary and now think you'd beat Martin Luther in a debate
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d803db No.8593
>>8590
That it's incompatible with being a sodomite.
>>8591
I'm not a Dimondite, or Sedevacantist. They generally just use Papal bulls out of context followed by Braaptist tier apocalyptic blatherskite nonsense. They're also Feeneyites in a very bizarre, dogmatic manner.
>now think you'd beat Martin Luther in a debate
Luther's "elocutions" would make most people (even today) blush.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e12033 No.8594
>>8593
What?
Forensic justification is about how righteousness is credited. I said that trannies/sodomites are evidencing an absence of salvation.
Where is the overlap?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
54937a No.8660
>>8528
>God promised the Holy Ghost would lead us into all truth. Was there a stipulation that this only includes when we read Scripture?
This is your only reference to scripture and I'm about finished with this level of blasphemy against God's word.
John 14:26 says that He will "bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." And the very verse you quoted John 16:13 says that "he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
Isn't it odd how unlearned unbelievers are at reading the most fundamental scripture? The answer to your question is yes. It specifically has to do with interpreting scripture, in fact. With bringing remembrance of "whatsoever I have said unto you." And with receiving of his and showing it unto you.
As also 1 John 2:27 says:
>But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
And 1 John 5:9-10
>If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
<He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself:
>he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
And John 14:16-17:
>And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
And Luke 11:9-13
>And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
>For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
>If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
>If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Acts 5:32
>And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Ephesians 1:13-14
>In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
>Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
>Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
1 John 3:24
>And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1 Corinthians 2:12-14
>Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
>Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So the answer is yes, that's how God is able to teach man knowledge and give a man understanding. Now I'm really tired of hearing you downtalk Scripture and try to say someone would fail to understand it, yet learn by some fallible saying of man. And so it's written, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. And also, The servant is not greater than his lord. (John 15:20) And also, if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. And also, So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1e0f5e No.10022
>>8265
Catholics have made weaker churches drunk with their Babylonian wine.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
727b60 No.10034
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
83997e No.10036
>>10034
I don't know why he would call that "Protestant banter" considering the reformers recognized the Franks as the 'good guys' in their historic dispute with the Greeks
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f08338 No.10049
>>8660
>I'm about finished with this level of blasphemy against God's word.
Oh, like ripping 6 inspired books out of the Bible? You literally follow a twentieth century movement (KJV-onlyism).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1ab7dd No.10050
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f08338 No.10051
>>10050
What did I say that was false? Please elucidate me.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1ab7dd No.10063
>>10051
you're dodging an argument by attacking an unrelated position that you're ascribing to your debate opponent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.