Featured whats Does The RCC mass/Eucherist Add To lacking of the Cross?

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Since when does the word 'official' mean 'change'? You mention the 'change' in catechisms. A catechism is a paraphrase of doctrine. Doctrine (such as the findings of Ecumenical Councils) is eternal, but the language and vocabulary of doctrine may be adapted to suit the needs of time, people, and places. This is WHY the Church issues new Catechisms in the first place.

Encyclicals" are letters by the Pope addressed to various groups (sometimes to small groups of people, sometimes fellow priests throughout the world, sometimes to all the Faithful). They carry Magesterial authority but absolutely are NOT regarded as infallable unless they are specifically said to be so, AND THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

 

The superstitious myth of the Assumption of Mary had been around for a long time. Its history can be read in the Catholic Encyclopedia. But that same encyclopedia will admit:

It only became an infallible dogma of the RCC in 1950. People believed it before then. But it was not officially part of the Catholic faith until 1950. Thus the Catholic "deposit of faith" that TS refers to does change.

Note that to deny this doctrine is blasphemous:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

The Arians are proof that the trinity was not always believed.

 

The deposit of faith never changes.

However, we can have a deper understanding of it.

So all Doctrines about Mary actually derive from what is believed about Jesus Christ and certify the deposit on who Jesus Christ is. Thus it has always been believed.

And the definition was in 1850's. However, what you believe about Mary whether she is immaculate or not does not affect your salvation thus doesn't meet the requirement

 

It certainly was but not as that word. Jesus commanded that we be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It just hadn't been defined as Trinity. The word Trinity was coined by Tertullian to express the Godhead. who was long before Arius. However, Trinity, in its definition was defined in 325 AD but had been always believed though not connected to the word Trinity. Trinity isn't a new revelation but one that was clarified at Church Council. It had however always been believed that Jesus Christ was God. That God the Father was God and that the Holy Spirit was God and that there was only one God. The details weren't formulated until Nicea.

However, are you suggesting that you don't believe in the trinity because it was "never taught"?

 

No, I am suggesting that there was never complete unity in doctrine and that sometimes the only way unity was achieved was by force, thus a false and superficial unity.

 

In spite of your undying faithfulness to the heretical doctrines of the RCC, the fact remains that the deposit of faith was changed in 1950 as just proven. You just won't accept it.

 

Also, the EOC wouldn't believe that RCC doctrine has not changed.

 

There is also a "Flat Earth Society" still in existence too. I wonder if they know that.

 

So, there was never a unified body of believers. All believers would force other believers into their beliefs by killing them. So the Montanist, the Gnostics, etc... were just competing brands of Christianity just as valid as any other Christian Church?

That doesn't play out in the historical Christian documents. What usually happpened is that people believed the same things but then someone would venture out with a hypothesis that would lead to a competing belief that had to be reviewed argued for and against and a defining decision on defintion or doctrine would be made at a church council which defined the issue and become a "doctrine".

 

Everyone knows that gnosticism is heretical.
However the Montanists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Petrobrussians, Henricians, and so many of the other similar groups were protest groups against the heresies of the RCC. That is what they all had in common. They varied a little between each other. They preached the gospel, and stood against the Catholic heresies throughout the centuries.

 

All bishops in the early church were called Papa where we get the term Pope which pasically meant Father.

Ok, which ones?

So according to you Rome had real believers hidding away somewhere but when Trent came along they Jump ship? That doesn't match with history. And it means the Chrisitan Church was defeated for 1600 years. I don't think that stands up against the Lord's promise.

Funny Trent didn't say anything new.

 

Montinist where heretical and had false prophets and were closer to Pentecostals than baptist. They also had liturgical services.

 

Go back to the scripture.

Note everytime the Apostles are listed among the disciples Peter is always mentioned first. His name isn't alphabetically first so another reason he is always mentioned first. He was pre-eminent among the disciples. From here we see Bishop Clement of Rome Authoritatively telling the people there to stop harrasing their bishop in Clement 1. So there has always been an understand of this pre-eminent position

You can't even show one.

Jesus Christ meant the church and if you are right and the Roman Church is anti-Christ then Christianity lost for 1600 years and was overcome by the gates of hell.

I could go into a long discourse on how I discovered the Catholic Church was correct through bible study and study of history. But I don't think that will help you understand. If you are really interested pm me.

 

Is that why Tertullian joined them. He repudiated his RCC baptism when he did so. Montanists broke away from Christianity in general because he saw the corruption and worldliness going on. He wanted purity in the churches. The history that you paint them with comes from the rose-colored eyes of the revised history of the RCC. Much of their history was recorded by their enemies. I can quote you from more reliable sources that they are not heretical like you say.
There are some very good conservative Pentecostal churches. They are evangelical, and unlike the RCC, they preach the gospel. They baptize by immersion after a person is born again. They don't equate born again to baptism. They know and understand that salvation is by faith and faith alone. They believe in sola scriptura, sola fide. They don't believe that tongues are necessary for salvation, and only practice them privately. (This is where I would disagree with them). But I would be in much more agreement with them then the RCC.

 

Quite so. And many were nearly exterminated for doing so, after church and state became conjoined in an alliance of hell.

Killing others for Jesus became quite the sporting event -- hanging, the guillotine, burning at the stake, and drowning Anabaptists as a parody of their baptism.

 

You and I have had serious differences, but you are right on in this instance.