The Errors of the Catholics

[abacabb3]

This pretty succinctly lists Papal dogmas and proves they did not exist in the early Church, like Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, Immaculate Conception, etcetera.

 

[ArmyMatt]

will check out later, thanks!

 

[prodromos]

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with the response of Catholics to this video being posted. No one has attempted to engage the actual content, they've simply dismissed it as anti-Catholic misinformation. They also had the opportunity to point out any flaws in the arguments within the walled off confines of OBOB, but instead cited the Congregational forum rules to have the thread deleted.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with the response of Catholics to this video being posted. No one has attempted to engage the actual content, they've simply dismissed it as anti-Catholic misinformation. They also had the opportunity to point out any flaws in the arguments within the walled off confines of OBOB, but instead cited the Congregational forum rules to have the thread deleted.

Not worth the effort.] or time to sit through 35 minutes. I asked for a written summary and was denied.

On the other hand, no knowledgeable Catholic will claim that Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, or Immaculate Conception existed in the early church or church of Acts and Epistles.

Why wo threads?

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/errors-of-the-catholics-discussion.8279822/page-2#post-77304698

 

[prodromos]

Why wo threads?
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...olics-discussion.8279822/page-2#post-77304698

This was the first one, posted in St Justin Martyrs where non Orthodox are free to debate. No one did which is why abacabb3 posted in OBOB, to get a Catholic response, only to be rudely shown to the door.

 

[Not David]

Not worth the effort.] or time to sit through 35 minutes. I asked for a written summary and was denied.

On the other hand, no knowledgeable Catholic will claim that Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, or Immaculate Conception existed in the early church or church of Acts and Epistles.

Why wo threads?

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/errors-of-the-catholics-discussion.8279822/page-2#post-77304698

Isn't it problematic that some important beliefs are not present in the Early Church?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Isn't it problematic that some important beliefs are not present in the Early Church?

or those that used to be contradicted by Rome

 

[Light of the East]

On the other hand, no knowledgeable Catholic will claim that Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, or Immaculate Conception existed in the early church or church of Acts and Epistles.

You joke. I have had numerous interactions online with Catholic apologists who will say exactly that. What they do is to twist the words of the Fathers to make them sound as if these dogmas are being taught. It is profoundly dishonest and makes me lack any respect for them.

 

[prodromos]

You joke. I have had numerous interactions online with Catholic apologists who will say exactly that. What they do is to twist the words of the Fathers to make them sound as if these dogmas are being taught. It is profoundly dishonest and makes me lack any respect for them.

I just happened to have a look at the tract one of the Catholics linked to on Papal Infallibility and this is a classic example of what you just stated.
From the tract:

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. Saint Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).​

Below is the actual quote from St Augustine.

My brothers and sisters, please share my anxiety and concern. Wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them, don’t be perversely soft-hearted. No question about it, wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them. Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished;​

 

[Light of the East]

I just happened to have a look at the tract one of the Catholics linked to on Papal Infallibility and this is a classic example of what you just stated.
From the tract:

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. Saint Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).​

Below is the actual quote from St Augustine.

My brothers and sisters, please share my anxiety and concern. Wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them, don’t be perversely soft-hearted. No question about it, wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them. Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished;​

Yeah.

Typical.

If you start questioning the Immaculate Conception, for instance, they will invariably bring up a link to Catholic Answers as a response. Supposedly this ends the discussion. They are not usually ready for me to come back to them and point out that all of the quotes from the Fathers used at CA do not in any place, anywhere, or at any time use the word "conceived" in their defense of the Theotokos being immaculate, without sin, pure, and unstained by the passions (did I forget anything?) The Fathers simply state that She is immaculate, which we Orthodox also teach, sing about in our hymns, and agree with in our prayers.

This is the kind of duplicity you find constantly in Roman apologia.

 

[zippy2006]

I just happened to have a look at the tract one of the Catholics linked to on Papal Infallibility and this is a classic example of what you just stated.
From the tract:

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. Saint Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).​

Below is the actual quote from St Augustine.

My brothers and sisters, please share my anxiety and concern. Wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them, don’t be perversely soft-hearted. No question about it, wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them. Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished;​

"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error" (Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734).

In Latin a rescriptum is a written reply. The English translation is also perfectly adequate:

Rescript (Merriam-Webster):

1. a written answer of a Roman emperor or of a pope to a legal inquiry or petition
2. an official or authoritative order, decree, edict, or announcement
3. an act or instance of rewriting

I suppose someone could prefer M-W (3) to (1), (2), the Latin meaning, and the context, but that would be an odd thing to do. If the Apostolic See had no role in the authority of the decrees, then why mention it in this context? Is the claim somehow that the Apostolic See was only jointly authoritative alongside the two local councils? I think the more sophisticated Orthodox response is that this only signifies appellate jurisdiction.

 

[zippy2006]

This is the kind of duplicity you find constantly in Roman apologia.

• Fr. Christiaan Kappes on the Immaculate Conception
• Timestamp for second interview (2:24:27)

 

[prodromos]

"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error" (Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734).

In Latin a rescriptum is a written reply. The English translation is also perfectly adequate:

Rescript (Merriam-Webster):

1. a written answer of a Roman emperor or of a pope to a legal inquiry or petition
2. an official or authoritative order, decree, edict, or announcement
3. an act or instance of rewriting

I suppose someone could prefer M-W (3) to (1), (2), the Latin meaning, and the context, but that would be an odd thing to do. If the Apostolic See had no role in the authority of the decrees, then why mention it in this context? Is the claim somehow that the Apostolic See was only jointly authoritative alongside the two local councils? I think the more sophisticated Orthodox response is that this only signifies appellate jurisdiction.

Augustine was from Hippo, near Carthage in North Africa, and thus fell under Rome's jurisdiction. Thus they would receive official pronouncements from Church Councils via Rome

 

[zippy2006]

Augustine was from Hippo, near Carthage in North Africa, and thus fell under Rome's jurisdiction. Thus they would receive official pronouncements from Church Councils via Rome

Okay, that is plausible.