The Declaration of Utrecht -- September 24, 1889.

[sambackues]

I'm a bit confused about where you are on the Immaculate Conception. As a Catholic, I do hold to the Immaculate Conception, and it seems that the early church fathers would teach this. I actually came from the Coptic Orthodox Church to the Catholic Church, because of some issues. About Chalcedon, you are free to ask any questions anyone would like to ask.

[JonTheJansenist]

@sambackues I do hold to the ancient church's view that Mary conceived as a virgin and that Jesus was born untouched by Original Sin. However, I do not hold to the view that Mary was free of Original or Actual Sin in her life (otherwise she would have been free from the curse of death). I hold that it is the father of a family that is responsible for the transmission of Original Sin, thus God the Father being free of sin, not Mary.

[Akatam0t0ma]

Lol@"undivided church"

[JonTheJansenist]

@Akatam0t0ma The "Undivided Church" is a term used to denote all those who partook in the established orthodoxy of the first 1000 years of Anno Domini, it does not denote false claimants to the faith such as Gnostics, Arians, Pelagians, or other groups going around pretending to be members of the church. To an outsider looking at differing sides fighting, all carrying crosses, one sees a house divided. But to the members, it is two distinct houses in conflict.

[Akatam0t0ma]

@JonTheJansenist:

And what about churches that split from the "established orthodoxy" following the Council of Chalcedon?

[JonTheJansenist]

@Akatam0t0ma I can't speak for any membership in particular as views can be subject to correction, but the institutional churches that confess something contrary to the Confession of Chalcedon are not holding to a very clear and accurate explanation of Christ's nature according to The Gospel, hence their orthodoxy is critically flawed. Lutherans generally accept this council, but run into problems with it in regards to their view on the nature of the Eucharist.

[10WiseVirgins]

how dare you? the pope ALWAYS was a HEAD of the Roman CC. How much Anglicans paid you! JUDAS! Rejecting Immaculate Conception? It was always in the teaching of saints.

DEVIL POSSESSED EVIL HERETICS!

[JonTheJansenist]

@10WiseVirgins Actually I opposed the union of Utrecht with the Anglican Church because they made their King the head of the church instead of accepting the proper, apostolic church where all are equal as priest-servants, but lesser or greater in terms of functionality.

There was no Anglican Church in Holland to teach the Bishopric of their historical rights, nor was there in France to sway the Gallican Church into supporting their own rights as a national church.

[JonTheJansenist]

@10WiseVirgins (cont.) If you want to talk about devil possessed heretics, how about we talk about the Jesuit filth that the Vatican scraped off the gutters of Spain during the Alumbrado heresy and sent to France and Holland to destroy 2 valid churches and 1 historic Apostolic See. Or how about how the Roman Curia polluted the mass with semi-Pelagian errors and Aristotelian pseudo-philosophy.

If you wish to fight heresy, you may want to start with the one you see in the mirror.

[JonTheJansenist]

@10WiseVirgins (cont.) Utrecht and the Old Catholic Churches DO NOT reject the universally accepted testimony of scripture that Mary conceived as a virgin, and lived her entire life as a virgin and knew no other man. We also believe that the curse of original sin is not transferred by the woman, but by the man, therefore we do not believe Jesus' flesh was tainted.

However, we do reject the deification of Mary, which is a Jesuit error that they imported from the Mohammedans and other heretics.