".. edificaré mi Iglesia, y las puertas del infierno no prevalecerán sobre ella"... "Yo estoy todos los días con ustedes, hasta el fin de los tiempos"... "El que a vosotros escucha, a Mi me escucha; el que a vosotros desprecia (desoye), a mi me desoye"... "Reciban el Espíritu Santo: a quienes perdonen los pecados, les quedan perdonados; a quienes se los retengan, les quedan retenidos".
@jasonbently2002 "YOU ARE STUPID AND POINTLESS TO EVEN BOTHER WITH." Then why fuss with me in the first place? The reply I made to you regarding protestant liturgies was meant for that protestant commenter on this page, not for your Church. As you can see I defended the Eastern Churches from calumny by that individual as I had high regard for it being, in the words of the late Pope, one of the two "lungs" of Christianity. You may not regard the Latins as such but that's not my problem.
@jasonbently2002 2: "WHERE SOME POPES WERE NOT EVEN PRESENT" If they could not attend, they sent LEGATES. And if they weren't there how could they personally preside over the sessions? And does it negate their authority if they don't? Even in post-schism councils the Pope does not preside. And as the history of the Ecumenical Councils show, the decisions of an Ecumenical Council may be AFFIRMED and PROMULGATED or ANNULLED (as was done by the Papal Legate at Ephesus II)
@jasonbently2002 You just repeated what you wrote a few days ago. What's wrong with copy pasting? Makes the quote accurate if you ask me. You're losing your cool and your control, poor kid. Now: 1. The emperor calling councils doesn't make the Church Conciliarist. Remember the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449? The emperor called it, but was annulled and condemned for its irregularities by Pope Leo I. HE excommunicated EVERYONE responsible for it. EVERYONE.
THE FACT THE COUNCILS WERE CONCILIAR AND CALLED BY THE EMPEROR, WHERE SOME POPES WERE NOT EVEN PRESENT, ATTESTS TO THE FACT THAT THE APOSTOLIC AND EVEN SCRIPTURAL ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WAS CONCILIAR AND NOT SOME RIDICULOUSLY EVIL PAPAL MONARCHY. POPE's WERE BOUND BY THE DECISIONS OF THE COUNCILS AND COULD BE CONDEMNED BY THEM. ENOUGH, YOU ARE STUPID AND POINTLESS TO EVEN BOTHER WITH.THERE IS NO PRIMACY IN ANY SENSE WHEN THE POPE IS THE HERETIC AND HIS CHURCH HAS FALLEN AWAY. GOT IT STUPID?!
FIRSTLY, YOU IGNORAMUS, THE DECREES OF THE HOLY ECUMENICAL ARE PREFACED WITH "IT SEEMED GOOD TO US AND THE HOLY SPIRIT." SECONDLY, PRIMACY MEANS BEING FIRST AMONG A GROUP OF OTHERS.THAT's THE MEANING OF THE WORD.THIRDLY I SIMPLY WENT AFTER YOUR IGNORANT LINE OF ARGUMENTATION, SHOWED HOW EVEN DECONTEXTUALIZATIONS HAVEN't THE SLIGHTEST FORCE BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT YOU PRESENT IS NON SEQUITER.YOU ARGUE PATRISTICS IDEAS ON PRIMACY AND SAY THAT IS HERETICAL PAPAL MONARCHY.IT DOES NOT FOLLOW...
Your sect begins in 1054 when you leave OUR CHURCH for papal despotism,heresies,blasphemies and even evolve entire theological and ecclesiological systems at variance with the Orthodox Catholic ChurchWE HAVE PRESERVED THAT.YOU HAVE ADULTERATED ITBy St. Vincent of Lerins definition WE ARE THE TRUE CATHOLICS:OUR FAITH IS ORTHODOX whereas you ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH AND DO NOT HOLD THE CATHOLIC FAITH.When the pope becomes Orthodoxthen primacy which MEANS PRESIDENCY IN COLLEGIALITY can occur
The very word "primacy" IMPLIES COLLEGIALITY NOT MONARCHY, but you don't seem to get that. I have torn apart those decontextualized "proof texts" on other threads by simply showing 1). THAT THE CHURCH WAS CONCILIAR AND THAT THE POPE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THERE WERE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS CALLED BY THE EMPEROR, WAS NOT THE ARBITER OR HEAD OF THE CHURCH & 2). THEY PRESUPPOSE AN ORTHODOX PAPACY TO MAKE THAT PRIMACY OPERATIVE.
We Adore You oh Christ and Praise You. Amen!
cyberwi09 4 months ago
A comfort for us Catholics of the True Church, watch these videos
mcpetropolis 6 months ago
".. edificaré mi Iglesia, y las puertas del infierno no prevalecerán sobre ella"... "Yo estoy todos los días con ustedes, hasta el fin de los tiempos"... "El que a vosotros escucha, a Mi me escucha; el que a vosotros desprecia (desoye), a mi me desoye"... "Reciban el Espíritu Santo: a quienes perdonen los pecados, les quedan perdonados; a quienes se los retengan, les quedan retenidos".
jcastrodelabarra 6 months ago
@jasonbently2002 "YOU ARE STUPID AND POINTLESS TO EVEN BOTHER WITH." Then why fuss with me in the first place? The reply I made to you regarding protestant liturgies was meant for that protestant commenter on this page, not for your Church. As you can see I defended the Eastern Churches from calumny by that individual as I had high regard for it being, in the words of the late Pope, one of the two "lungs" of Christianity. You may not regard the Latins as such but that's not my problem.
drupes 7 months ago
@jasonbently2002 2: "WHERE SOME POPES WERE NOT EVEN PRESENT" If they could not attend, they sent LEGATES. And if they weren't there how could they personally preside over the sessions? And does it negate their authority if they don't? Even in post-schism councils the Pope does not preside. And as the history of the Ecumenical Councils show, the decisions of an Ecumenical Council may be AFFIRMED and PROMULGATED or ANNULLED (as was done by the Papal Legate at Ephesus II)
drupes 7 months ago
@jasonbently2002 You just repeated what you wrote a few days ago. What's wrong with copy pasting? Makes the quote accurate if you ask me. You're losing your cool and your control, poor kid. Now: 1. The emperor calling councils doesn't make the Church Conciliarist. Remember the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449? The emperor called it, but was annulled and condemned for its irregularities by Pope Leo I. HE excommunicated EVERYONE responsible for it. EVERYONE.
drupes 7 months ago
THE FACT THE COUNCILS WERE CONCILIAR AND CALLED BY THE EMPEROR, WHERE SOME POPES WERE NOT EVEN PRESENT, ATTESTS TO THE FACT THAT THE APOSTOLIC AND EVEN SCRIPTURAL ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WAS CONCILIAR AND NOT SOME RIDICULOUSLY EVIL PAPAL MONARCHY. POPE's WERE BOUND BY THE DECISIONS OF THE COUNCILS AND COULD BE CONDEMNED BY THEM. ENOUGH, YOU ARE STUPID AND POINTLESS TO EVEN BOTHER WITH.THERE IS NO PRIMACY IN ANY SENSE WHEN THE POPE IS THE HERETIC AND HIS CHURCH HAS FALLEN AWAY. GOT IT STUPID?!
jasonbently2002 7 months ago
FIRSTLY, YOU IGNORAMUS, THE DECREES OF THE HOLY ECUMENICAL ARE PREFACED WITH "IT SEEMED GOOD TO US AND THE HOLY SPIRIT." SECONDLY, PRIMACY MEANS BEING FIRST AMONG A GROUP OF OTHERS.THAT's THE MEANING OF THE WORD.THIRDLY I SIMPLY WENT AFTER YOUR IGNORANT LINE OF ARGUMENTATION, SHOWED HOW EVEN DECONTEXTUALIZATIONS HAVEN't THE SLIGHTEST FORCE BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT YOU PRESENT IS NON SEQUITER.YOU ARGUE PATRISTICS IDEAS ON PRIMACY AND SAY THAT IS HERETICAL PAPAL MONARCHY.IT DOES NOT FOLLOW...
jasonbently2002 7 months ago
Your sect begins in 1054 when you leave OUR CHURCH for papal despotism,heresies,blasphemies and even evolve entire theological and ecclesiological systems at variance with the Orthodox Catholic ChurchWE HAVE PRESERVED THAT.YOU HAVE ADULTERATED ITBy St. Vincent of Lerins definition WE ARE THE TRUE CATHOLICS:OUR FAITH IS ORTHODOX whereas you ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH AND DO NOT HOLD THE CATHOLIC FAITH.When the pope becomes Orthodoxthen primacy which MEANS PRESIDENCY IN COLLEGIALITY can occur
jasonbently2002 7 months ago
The very word "primacy" IMPLIES COLLEGIALITY NOT MONARCHY, but you don't seem to get that. I have torn apart those decontextualized "proof texts" on other threads by simply showing 1). THAT THE CHURCH WAS CONCILIAR AND THAT THE POPE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THERE WERE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS CALLED BY THE EMPEROR, WAS NOT THE ARBITER OR HEAD OF THE CHURCH & 2). THEY PRESUPPOSE AN ORTHODOX PAPACY TO MAKE THAT PRIMACY OPERATIVE.
jasonbently2002 7 months ago