Catholicism is the Fullness of the Christian Faith

Author: DeusVult
Christianity
truth
Catholic
Catholicism

Posts

Total: 124
Topic's author
#61
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
i said there's no evidence of infallibility in the early church, and you just posted vague verses about peter's special role. way off the mark, on your part. it appears you have closed yourself off from truth. 

what do you think of those examples of contradictions i posted from the catholic church? 
I fail to see where I did not show infallibility in those circumstances.  You haven't actually shown why my assertion is in error.

As noted before I'm trying to deal with a single issue from each person at a time.  Otherwise the conversation ends up a messy jumble.  If there is one contradiction you wish to discuss after we finish infallibility that would be great.
Topic's author
#62
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Melcharaz
Why do you believe that only these books are scripture?

Did Jesus leave a book or a Church?
#63
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
those quotes that you showed didn't say anything like "the pope cannot err on faith and morals'. at best they showed we should listen to the pope, maybe.  very vague. 
#64
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Simple. Because these books "defile the hands" i already answered that. He left the church and his spirit.
Topic's author
#65
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
those quotes that you showed didn't say anything like "the pope cannot err on faith and morals'. at best they showed we should listen to the pope, maybe.  very vague. 
And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” - Matthew 16:17-19

So Jesus gives Peter the ability to bind and loose so strongly that it is also bound and loosed in heaven.  Now since nothing impure can enter heaven, that means that Peter is being protected from binding or loosing anything contrary to God's will.  In essence Peter is protected from error when acting as "Peter (Rock)".

This is further emphasized by saying that the gates of Hades will not overpower the Church built on Peter (Rock).  That means that the Church cannot teach error, because if it did so it would have been overcome by the forces of hell.
Topic's author
#66
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Melcharaz
Simple. Because these books "defile the hands" i already answered that.
You'll have to explain further.  None of your previous replies stated anything like that and need to be explained.

He left the church and his spirit.
What Church?

Your answers are too cryptic to actually carry on a conversation because it is so vague that there is no actual meaning in what you write.
#67
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
The church are those filled with the holy spirit. And what i answered already is your question about jesus leaving a church or book.

You will have to do research on defiling the hands when it comes to scripture. But basically scripture is verified by its holiness and by Gods spirit.

#68
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
My words would have more meaning if you could "hear and understand" but you cant right now. God willing when you seek God you will know the truth.
Topic's author
#69
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@Melcharaz
My words would have more meaning if you could "hear and understand" but you cant right now. God willing when you seek God you will know the truth.
Ha!  In other words you cannot define or be bothered to actually explain what you mean.

But basically scripture is verified by its holiness and by Gods spirit.
While true in a sense your same argument would be used by any religion about its faith.  It doesn't say anything about how the Bible came to be and why we believe it is the word of God.
#70
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
jesus later gave all the apostles the power to bind and loose. also, you can search for hundreds of years of early church history/fathers, and you won't find mention of the pope being unable to teach error on faith and morals. it just isn't present in the early church, period. 
Topic's author
#71
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
Yes Jesus gave all the apostles the ability bind and loose.  But he gave Peter the Keys, as per Isaiah:

“I will depose you from your office,
            And I will pull you down from your station.
      “Then it will come about in that day,
            That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
      And I will clothe him with your tunic
            And tie your sash securely about him.
            I will entrust him with your authority,
            And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
      “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
            When he opens no one will shut,
            When he shuts no one will open.
      “I will drive him like a peg in a firm place,
            And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house.

This was the office  of the Steward of the King.  He had the ultimate authority to act on behalf of the King.  As Christ is the king, Peter is the steward.

You don't actually address my argument as to why Peter must be relied upon to be able to teach without error.

There was deference to Peter and his successors in the early Church.  You won't find any valid council where the Pope did not agree to it. 

Your argument is like saying that before Nicea there was no belief in the Trinity because it hadn't been expressly defined.

It is quite clear, though not explicitly defined as you want it to be:

#72
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
with the trinity and similar doctrines, there are the elements of the teaching in the bible and the early church. you can read it explicitly. with the idea of papal infallibility, there is the key verse you cite, but there should be plenty of corroborating evidence in the bible or the early church, and there isn't. the silence is deafening. 

you can see the lack of that doctrine in the early church, for example....

""Augustine had ample opportunity in his actions and vast literary works to express belief in the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. Of all the Fathers of the Church, Augustine wrote the most on church unity and authority. He wrote 75 chapters to the separated Donatists in "The Unity of the Church", using all sort of arguments to urge them to return to communion. Of the necessity of communion with Rome, or Rome as a centre of unity, or Rome's supreme authority, there is not one single word." (6) The silence is deafening."
#73
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]

"If Tierney is right in his reconstruction of Pietro Olivi’s thought and fears, then Olivi’s worst premonitions were quickly fulfilled. Pietro Olivi died in 1298. In 1322 Pope John XXII did in fact revoke the teachings of Nicholas III in the bull Exiit of 1279. John XXII, moreover, bitterly resented and strongly attacked the attempts by the Spiritual Franciscans of his own day to deny him the right to overturn the doctrinal position embraced by Nicholas III. The Spirituals, adopting the lead provided for them by Olivi, argued that Pope John could not undo what Pope Nicholas had done because the pope was infallible. Pope John replied in a blistering bull, Quia Quorundam, in which he stigmatized the idea of papal infallibility as a “pestiferous doctrine” and a “pernicious audacity.” We are thus confronted with a striking paradox: on the one side, the Spirituals insisting as vehemently as they could that the pope was infallible; on the other side, the pope protesting as vigorously as he could that he was not infallible at all."
Topic's author
#74
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
Except of course the obvious example:

Roma locuta est, causa finita est - Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Now when dealing with Pelagianism Augustine wrote:

"Do you think these Fathers -- viz. Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Hilary, Ambrose [whom he had been quoting] are to be despised because they all belong to the Western Church, and I have mentioned no Eastern Bishop among them? What are we to do, since they are Greeks and we are Latins? I think that you ought to be satisfied with that part of the world in which our Lord willed to crown the chief (primus) of His apostles (Peter) with a glorious martyrdom. If you had been willing to hear blessed Innocent, the president of that Church, you would have long ago disengaged your perilous youth from the nets of the Pelagians. For what could that holy man answer to the African Councils, except what from of old the Apostolic See and the Roman Church with all others perseveringly holds? And yet you accuse his successor Zosimus of prevarication, because he would not allow the apostolic doctrine and the decision of his successor to be rescinded. But I say no more of this, that I may not, by the praise of him who condemned you, irritate your mind, which I desire rather to heal than to wound. See what you can reply to St. Innocent, who has no other view than have those into whose council I have introduced you (viz. the Fathers whom he had quoted); with these he sits also, though after them in time, before them in rank (etsi posterior tempore prior loco)....answer him, or rather our Lord Himself, whose words he alleges....What will you say? What can you answer? For it you should call blessed Innocent a Manichean, surely you will not dare to say it of Christ?"

and

Again St. Augustine relates that while Celestius refused at Rome to condemn the views which Paulinus accused him of holding, which was equivalent to denying the authority of the Council of Carthage in 411, from which he had appealed, yet "he did not dare to resist the letters of the blessed pope Innocent,"

and

"And the words of the venerable Bishop Innocent to the Council of Carthage....What more plain and clear than this sentence of the Apostolic See? To this Celestius professed to consent when....he answered: 'I condemn them according to the sentence of your holy predecessor Innocent.'...."What of that which the same Pope wrote in answer to the Bishops of Numidia also (because he had received letters from both Councils -- that is, both of Carthage and Milevis) does it not speak clearly of infants?"

Again : he speaks of Celestius seeming to be Catholic "when he answered that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, by which all doubt about this matter was removed."

The following passage is also to be noted, written at the end of the Saint's life: "Let blessed Innocent also reply, the prelate of the Roman Church, who in answering (rescribens) the African Episcopal Councils in your case said: (he then quotes a passage from the letter to the Council of Carthage). 'Do you see what the Catholic Faith holds by her minister?' 'Videsne quid sapiat per ministrum suum catholica fides?'"


Once again, not explicitly stated, but implicitly accepted.
#75
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DeusVult
If, by "fullness" is meant practice of all elements presented in the Gospels and the balance of epistles comprising the New Testament, there are several matters of doctrine contained therein not practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the discussion of baptism for the dead by Paul in I Corinthians 15. However, before discussing them, one must consider the variant versions of the Holy Bible in existence, and not just by language variants, but also by what is considered canonized by the various Christian factions. There is clearly not one canonical whole to which which all Christian factions adhere. Without that, your query cannot have a solid base argument.
#76
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
you should really ask yourself, with all augustine's works, why is it that all you can find are very obscure quotes and nothing concrete about the bishop of rome as you claim it to be? that is, your quotes are obscure and illustrate nothing more than the bishop of rome was respected. where is the talk of him being supreme leader or infallible and such?

on the 'rome has spoken' quote, here is the actual quote... . . . "for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise." here it is in context...

"What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. “They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” What is, “not according to knowledge”? “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc."

seriously though, you have hundreds of years of church fathers to draw on, and you have nothing to show for it. you need to ask yourself why that is. 
Topic's author
#77
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@fauxlaw
However, before discussing them, one must consider the variant versions of the Holy Bible in existence, and not just by language variants, but also by what is considered canonized by the various Christian factions. There is clearly not one canonical whole to which which all Christian factions adhere. Without that, your query cannot have a solid base argument.
Except that the canon of the bible was defined by the Church prior to any of the protestant factions developing.  The only reason that they have a different Canon is because one man chose to remove 7 books.  By what authority do they have to change the canon of scripture?

The canon of scripture had been set long long before.
Topic's author
#78
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]
You mean the Pope who said this?

“It is nothing to wonder at — that they presume to blaspheme the see of the blessed Apostle Peter… And on top of this, they call us proud when the first see has never ceased offering them whatever there is of piety. They with their utter shamelessness trust they will be able to subjugate it.. I will ask them this: the trial which they call for, where can it be held? With them (in the East), so that they may be the plaintiff, witnesses, and judges all in one? Neither human affairs nor the integrity of the divine faith must be entrusted to such a tribunal. It matters of religion (faith/morals), the canons say that the ultimate judgement must come only from the apostolic see. The powers of this world? It is not for them to judge — rather they are to learn from the bishops — and above all, from the vicar of blessed Peter about divine things. No ruler of this world, however powerful, whether Christian or not, can presume to claim this for himself, unless of course, he is a persecutor.

Sentences are different than changing the deposit of faith.

Pope Nicholas III & John XXII

What John XXIII rejected was the assertions of a sect within the Franciscan Order who called themselves “the Spirituals.” The Spirituals erroneously held that their interpretation of the rule and lifestyle of Saint Francis, especially in the matter of practicing poverty, was the the only legitamite way to follow Jesus Christ. In holding to this erroneous view, they asserted that approval of their disciplinary rule by earlier popes was a matter pertaining to faith and morals; and since the disciplinary rule was equal to the Gospel (in their erroneous view), no subsequent Pope could change or revoke it. The above decree from John XXII refuted this Spiritualist assertion. Thus, a pope could (and sometimes might have to ) modify an earlier pope’s legislation or revoke it. This pertains to matters of discipline, not faith and morals. Thus, John XXII is not even discussing the object of papal infallibility.
#79
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DeusVult
The canon of scripture had been set long long before.
Evidence of that, please. According to Metzger, Bruce M,  The Early Versions of the New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977 [pg 348], The Latin Vulgate, a translation from the earlier Vetus Latina was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382. However, neither were in wide distribution, particularly not to the public at large. In other words, "the Word of God" was not available to those most in need of it. The Church did not officially recognize the Vulgate until the 16th century, at the Council of Trent [1545 - 1563], and, though both the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina were in wide use in the Church until the Council, even though the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg, and its first product, the Bible, by a reformationist, was available generally from a century earlier. Meanwhile, according to the same source, an authoritative edition was still not available to parishioners sponsored by the Church. Imagine, expecting your parishioners to be obedient to the word of God, but you do not allow its distribution to them! Yeah, that's how to control your subjects; keep them ignorant.

#80
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
so what have we established? you've established that the bishop of rome thought he was in control in the early church. but other churches like cyprian and augustine and others didn't think that was true. and, nothing can be established in the way of an inerrant papacy as a doctrine, until hundreds of years after Christ. so why not go with 99% of the early church and ignore what the bishop of rome thought of himself? plus it's not like anyone established he was inerrant anyway, so that's just another reason, why bother listening to him? 
#81
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DeusVult
So, what good comes of defining the canon if no one is allowed to read it, even 100 years after Gutenberg? Like I said, the first order of businee in defining canonized scripture was keeping the people ignorant of it. That's good? Make some sense of that for me after I stop laughing.
Topic's author
#82
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@fauxlaw
The Church answers questions as they need to be answered.   So the question was which books can be read from at mass.  Since only the word of God should be read at mass the Church pronounced on it many times as the question arose.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
 
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
 
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
 
The Council of Hippo, a local north African council of bishops, created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
 
The Council of Carthage, another local north African council of bishops, noted the same list of canonical books in 397. Many Protestant / Evangelical Christians take this council as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. Oddly enough, they don't accept the authority of this council on the Old Testament canon which is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
 
The Church reaffirmed the 73 books of the Bible at the Council of Florence in 1441.

As there was actual heresy with the Protestant revolt, the Church made an absolute pronouncement at the Council of Trent.   This is the normal way that the Church works - when it becomes necessary to define something they do so.  Otherwise they carry on under the assumption that the general understanding of the faith is correct.

Catholics were allowed to read the Bible.  During the Reformation there may have been some who worried about Catholics interpreting scripture in a manner other than how it was to be understood.  That is just pure propaganda.
Topic's author
#83
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
so what have we established? you've established that the bishop of rome thought he was in control in the early church. but other churches like cyprian and augustine and others didn't think that was true. and, nothing can be established in the way of an inerrant papacy as a doctrine, until hundreds of years after Christ. so why not go with 99% of the early church and ignore what the bishop of rome thought of himself? plus it's not like anyone established he was inerrant anyway, so that's just another reason, why bother listening to him? 
That is a complete denial of the Holy Spirit and the very words of Christ.  Jesus, logos incarnate, established a Church in which he promised all truth, without error founded on Peter.  Without Peter, then everyone becomes pope, deciding for themselves what is and isn't true - the great irony of protestantism.

There were also Popes who didn't believe in Papal infallibility, but in their case because they wanted more power; they wanted the right to overrule previously defined doctrine.  That is why the Church finally made a pronouncement on the topic - it needed to know what the truth on this topic was.  You either believe that the promise of Jesus to Peter is true or you cannot even rely on the Bible as the Bible is a product of the Church and not vise-versa.
#84
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DeusVult
You miss my entire point. Read at mass? Sure, but by whom? By the officiating priest. How about reading by the people in their own homes, when they could read AND study AND pray about what they've read. Tell me when Damasus allowed that. Show me.
I value my personal scripture reading and studying. Kind of difficult to accomplish if I have to borrow the priest's copy, if he would even be willing to lend it. In Damasus' time; and for centuries later, not a chance. Or am I unworthy as a 12th century parishioner to read the word of God? Might even help my general literacy, huh? No, keep me stupid, says Damasus. Prove me wrong
Topic's author
#85
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@fauxlaw
You miss my entire point. Read at mass? Sure, but by whom? By the officiating priest. How about reading by the people in their own homes, when they could read AND study AND pray about what they've read. Tell me when Damasus allowed that. Show me.
Can you show me where Damasus forbade it?  You are permitted to do that which is not forbidden, not vice-versa.

Prior to the printing press a Bible was a ridiculously expensive thing.  It would take a monk 3 years to make a new copy, it was printed on vellum which was also expensive.  The modern day cost of owning a Bible would have been roughly $100,000.  So if you could read, you could go and read the Bible in the Church.  Only few would be wealthy enough to own a Bible, but wealthy families could purchase a copy for themselves if they so chose.

#86
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
i think u need to do a better job of showing me why it's necessary to submit my will to someone else, which is a huge thing to ask. especially when it takes hundreds of years just to establish the idea of inerrant popes on faith and morals. but anyway, i suppose this looks hashed. 

what do you think of those contradictions? 'no salvation outside the catholic church', 'no salvation of unbaptized infants', and the death penalty. if you want me to pick one, i pick the salvation of infants who are unbaptized. im suspecting you will say the traditionalist understanding of these may be true, and then ignore that the modern approach flatly contradicts the old approach. but i'll let you do your own arguing. 
Topic's author
#87
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
i think u need to do a better job of showing me why it's necessary to submit my will to someone else, which is a huge thing to ask. especially when it takes hundreds of years just to establish the idea of inerrant popes on faith and morals. but anyway, i suppose this looks hashed. 
The early Church can be shown to be definitively Apostolic in nature.  I will assume then that if you deny the Pope you will accept the apostolic succession and you are Orthodox?  No?

St. Ignatius who learned directly from St. John:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

Do you follow the Bishop as you would the Apostles?  Do you appear where the bishop is?

Let's see what he says about those who don't believe in the real presence in the eucharist:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6


Topic's author
#88
DeusVult
DeusVult's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 107
0
1
1
DeusVult's avatar
DeusVult
0
1
1
-->
@n8nrgmi
 if you want me to pick one, i pick the salvation of infants who are unbaptized.
The Church has never dogmatically ruled on it.  Limbo was a theological construct.  So while it was common thought, it wasn't an actual dogma of the faith.

Next.
#89
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@DeusVult
I already gave you the reference: Metzger, Bruce M,  The Early Versions of the New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977 [pg 348], Sorry if you don't have a hard copy. Books are still legit, you know
#90
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@DeusVult
The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1442) spoke of baptism as necessary even for children and required that they be baptised soon after birth. ... The Council of Florencealso stated that those who die in original sin alone go to hell, but with pains unequal to those suffered by those who had committed actual mortal sins.

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. "