Infallibility or Ecumenical Error?

Constantine does not speak authoratatively for the Church. Go to authoratative sources if you wish to persist in this.

But first, please answer my questions.

Ron

 

Just in case you missed my questions, Jim.

 

Uhhh... DHK, the Council of Nicaea was held in 381. Constantine was Pope from 708 to 715.

Do you really think that Emperor Constantine who lived in 381 and Pope Constantine who lived over three hundred years later was the same man?


Now don't you feel just a little bit silly?

[ October 01, 2002, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Ron, even through your question you reveal your rejection of the Jewish brothers who have been made acceptable to God just as you and I have been. You have chosen to focus on "disputable matters". So has your Christian institution. But the Body does not have any interest in dividing through observances to Passover.

Can't you see that the Body is much more than any institution? It is.

Jim</font>[/QUOTE]Jim, for all your words you still avoid my very simple and direct questions. Why is that?

I will bump them again if you can't find them.

Ron

 

No, not really. Whether it was Pope Constantine of the Eighth Century of the Council of Nicea in the Fourth Century, or the doctrines of the Church Fathers that date from variuous years following the Apostles, the principle I set forth remains the same. Catholics pick and choose, at their own liberty who and what they want to believe. You will search through the works of Origen, for example, and quote him as one of your great church Fathers. But Origen was a great Church Heretic, the father of Arianism. You will pick a few nice platitudes of his to soothe the mind and ignore all his heresy and still count him one of your revered fathers. You do the same thing with your popes. "pick and choose; pick and choose." Like I mentioned, it must be kind of a Catholic version of soul liberty, the right to believe anything of the Catholic literature you want to, and the right not to believe anything of the Catholic literature you don't want to. There! You have soul liberty too!
DHK

[ October 02, 2002, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

No, not really. Whether it was Pope Constantine of the Eighth Century of the Council of Nicea in the Fourth Century, or the doctrines of the Church Fathers that date from variuous years following the Apostles, the principle I set forth remains the same. Catholics pick and choose, at their own liberty who and what they want to believe. You will search through the works of Origen, for example, and quote him as one of your great church Fathers. But Origen was a great Church Heretic, the father of Arianism. You will pick a few nice platitudes of his to soothe the mind and ignore all his heresy and still count him one of your revered fathers. You do the same thing with your popes. "pick and choose; pick and choose." Like I mentioned, it must be kind of a Catholic version of soul liberty, the right to believe anything of the Catholic literature you want to, and the right not to believe anything of the Catholic literature you don't want to. There! You have soul liberty too!
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]DHK, be a man and admit your mistake. You thought that Emporer Constantine was Pope at the time of the Council of Nicaea and went on your little anti-Catholic rant.

No Catholic holds out Origen as an infallible teacher of the Church. You are well aware of this.

Ron

 

Jim, that you continue to ignore these very simple questions is very telling.

Does your church allow Jews who do not accept Christ to be members? If not, why? Hatred?

Does your church observe Passover? If not, why? Hatred?

Would your church allow a person who observes Sabbath starting at sundown on Friday as a member? If not, why? Hatred?

Since you have not answered my questions, we may all assume that your church hates and has seperated from the Jews and thus is a false church and teaches a false gospel.

As for focusing on disputable matters, I remind you that it was you who started these threads.

Ron

[ October 02, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Hi there. You may be interested in a post I put in "20 years without one iota of NT Scripture", page 7. The question on this thread (I think) is, is a doctrine whose stated basis was hatred, infallable? The issue was not merely one of seperating from unbelieving Jews. It said that Christians who kept Easter on the date of Pasover were wrong. The Quartodeciman controversy was similar, and here the Roman church stated that you would be excomunicated if you kept Easter on the 14th of Nissan. That is, a believing Christian would be expelled from the church if they did this. Indeed, they would loose their salvation if they did this. This intolerance is (or should be) hard to defend.

Acts 15 shows where the early Jewish church gave grace to the new gentile membership not to have to obey the Law. The early Jewish believers kept it, but were led by the Spirit not to force it onto gentile converts. As the gentile church became dominant, however, it lacked such grace in return. On converting to Catholicism, Jews were required to make a declaration concerning their
renunciation of everything Jewish. The following (655 CE, from Visigoth Spain) is
typical of such declarations; “I do here and now renounce every rite and observance of
the Jewish religion, detesting all its most solemn ceremonies and tenets that in former
days I kept and held. In the future I will practice no rite or celebration connected with it,
nor any custom of my past error, promising neither to seek it out or perform it ... I
promise that I will never return to the vomit of Jewish superstition ... [I will] shun all
intercourse with other Jews and have the circle of my friends only among other
Christians”. J. Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York:
Hermon Press, 1974) 395.

In such declarations, the Catholic church opposed the teaching of the New Testament, both re love and that keeping Jewish festivals is no where spoken against, but is indeed practiced.

All the best, Colin

 

Sure, you jumped into the middle of a discussion, without bothering to find out what the discussion was about, because you wanted to get off on your anti-Catholic rant. Good form.

Of course, you fail (intentionally?) to differentiate between authoratative and noauthoratative sources. Not all sources are equal and not all are cited for the same purposes. To pretend that that are or must be is disingenuous to say the least.

Sorry, friend, the Church has but one set of doctrines, which do not disagree. You may find an individual who believes differently from the Church, but that does not change the teachings of the Church. That pesky authoratiative/nonauthoratitive thing, you know.

If you actually read my answer (and you have admitted that you don't bother to read through the whole thread) you will notice that I said that no Catholic says that Origen speaks authoratatively for the Church.

Ron

 

Jim, what we have here is a letter written by Constantine. He was not Pope. He was not a Bishop. No Catholic ever claimed that anything he said or did was "free from error".

Why do you assume that the feelings which he expressed in that letter were the feelings of all or even any of the Bishops at the Council? Why do you not consider that they may have been his feelings alone?

BTW, I found a web page virtually identical to your original post in the other thread that you started. Did you copy it from there? I don't recall any attribution.

That web page was maintanined by the YESHUA (spelling?) group that others here call a cult.

Is this your faith community? I notice that you do not state your denomination on your profile and you have not answered the question when I asked before. It is often helpful in a discussion to know what group of believers the other person identifies with.

Ron

[ October 03, 2002, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Huh???

 

T2U,
Let's put your quote in terms you can understand.

"I have asked several questions (four to be specific) for a specific purpose. Your refusal to answer them, despite their immediate relevance to this arguement, demostrates, to me anyway, that you are not acting in good faith."

Does this clear things up.
DHK

 

Clear as mud. Try being more direct.

Ron