I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

The Old testament laws obviously defer to the New testament. From Genesis it is obvious that God created marriage for 2 individuals, not 3 or 4.
It seems to me like you dont want to say anything is infallible, so you take the position that you cant be infallibly certain about anything.
If you believe God is real, and you believe he is sovereign, why do you not think he is able to make his truth known to us through inerrant scriptures?
This really baffles me, as it feels it makes God just an entity off in the skies who can give us no certain infallible or inerrant knowledge.

Does the Anglican church not believe scripture is doctrinally inerrant then?
If so thats unfortunate. I looked it up and just saw something about Episcopalians not believing inerrancy. Are you Episcopalian or Anglican?

A protestant denomination is the last one i expected to find this, frankly. Even the Catholic Church affirms the inerrancy of scripture:

"Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures” (CCC 107, quoting the Vatican II document Dei Verbum 11).

 

No one said he was. Noah wasn’t Jewish.

 

I was talking about beforehand. I misunderstood you, i thought you said james was imposing jewish laws on the gentiles and thats why the council needed to be convened.

 

What is this obsession with infallibility? Languages change, little by little, every day. There is no magic combination of words that will not fail to communicate universal truth, for all time. It doesn’t exist.

 

The infallibility doesnt mean we dont have trouble understanding it because of cultural barriers, etc. It just means its infallible and teaches no erroneous doctrine. Most of christianity is based off the bible so i have a problem with saying it may contain erroneous doctrine. It snowballs pretty quick from there, since we cant know whats right and wrong doctrine. Also pretty much all orthodox christians say scripture contains no erroneous doctrine.

We have to be certain we have the right canon. If we cant even get the canon right, its all shooting in the dark from there.

 

Exactly. So if the Church Fathers believed that the sacramental host itself became Jesus, then they would venerate it (as did the medievals after adopting transubstantiation). Except not one church father venerated the host.

There isn’t a single record of a patristic liturgy where veneration is conducted, or a Eucharistic text where veneration is suggested. St Cyril wrote an entire text of “Catechetical Lectures” where he writes several chapters on the Eucharist alone. And never once discusses veneration or adoration of the host. St Augustine left us with 20-30 volumes of writings, many of them on sacramental topics, and not once does he recommend venerating the host.

Where do you think that leaves the doctrine of the Church Fathers, if you are right in your quote above?

Could it be that that’s because you’ve only read pro-RCC historians? You’ve got the evidence of Nicea II being a false council and a “pseudo-synod”, right there in the primary sources of the Latin church. Why hasn’t anyone shown it to you before? Could it be because the Popes were always on the side of Nicea II and weren’t above doctoring documents to achieve their ends (like they’ve done in many other cases)?

There may be a credibility issue in the writers whom you’ve trusted to be your authorities. Could it be the they’ve been trying to drive an agenda, rather than pursue a disinterested search for truth?

Surely you realize that that’s not a good reason, right? Maybe the right thing to do here is for you to take an L on this issue, and go back to make sure that you’re on the side of truth, before continuing further.

 

Ummm did you read anything I quoted?
Anything ??
You’re ignoring the church fathers because they obviously don’t agree with you lol.
Theodoret says he worships the Eucharist, come on….
The fact you say the church fathers would venerate the Eucharist after the liturgy if they believed that the host was Christ is false.
Do you know the Eastern Orthodox and oriental orthodox don’t have Eucharistic adoration, and they believe the same thing?

Just read what I quoted or I can’t reply to you anymore. You’re either not reading what I said or in utter denial because you know they disagreed with you.
You can’t prove they believed it to still be bread when they literally said they WORSHIPPED it in the same out of context quote you gave

This honestly frustrates me

 

No one here is making that argument.

The Church did just fine without a definitive canon for several centuries. All the references to “the scriptures” (with one possible exception) in the NT are to the OT, and the latter hadn’t been definitively determined at the time the NT books were being written. I can’t think of a single article of faith that is dependent on any one book of the NT.

 

Yes they do. It just occurs in the Liturgy itself, rather than as an isolated devotional act. Even as late as the 18th century it was quite common in Greece for Orthodox clergy and laity to participate in Corpus Christi processions. It’s the particular “format” that is alien to the Orthodox, not the act itself or its underlying theology. (Same goes for other devotional acts, like the Rosary.)

 

The Israelites might as well have claimed that they believed their golden calf truly represented Almighty God, which made it okay to dance around it, bow to it, kiss it, etc. It's all in the intention, eh?

 

In all fairness, @BedtimePrayers has a (partial) point with regard to the quotation from Theodoret. On the other hand, of course, for Theodoret any action toward the elements would have been veneration (proskynesis), not adoration (latreia).

John of Damascus later offered a more ‘realist’ interpretation, in Book 4 of The Orthodox Faith:

But if some persons called the bread and the wine antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration, so calling the offering itself.

The whole issue can be clarified by answering a very simple question: ought one to worship (with adoration) the deity and humanity of Jesus, or his deity only? The gulf between the two possible answers to that question is as wide as that between Hades and Abraham’s bosom. All other positions regarding sacraments, rituals, acts of devotion, etc., are determined by it.

 

I do find your posts somewhat contradictory. You vacillate between claiming the pope is the supreme authority in the Catholic Church, and that that is a necessary thing, and then talk about checks and balances on his power. No one, as far as I am aware, is accusing the pope of being tyrannical. That does not alter the fact the Catholic Church claims he is the supreme authority in the Catholic Church. He cannot be the supreme authority and have checks and balances on his power. If he has the latter then he does not have supreme authority.

I find nowhere in the Latin Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law where a pople can be held to account by a council. Indeed, the Code says no council can be summoned without papal mandate. The agenda must be approved by the pope. If any dcrees are published they have to be published under papal authority. Indeed, we saw that when Pope John XXIII died Vatican II was automatically suspended. It only carried on because Paul VI decided it could.

You mention Honorius again but still have not answered my question about which of the four popes who have had that name is the ome to which you refer. I have also asked you to say who, with supporting evidence, deposed him. Unless you can do this I shall continue to hold what I believe is the position of those far more erudite than me that a pope cannot be deposed. A higher authority than a pope would be required to do this and the Catholic Church considers there to be no higher power than the pope on earth. Of course forcing a pope out by force of arms or convincing him to resign for the benefit of his continued well-being is not deposition.

 

I want you to read this very, very carefully:

“They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molten calf and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed thereunto and said, ‘These are thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!’”

So you see, they 1) worshipped the calf, 2) sacrificed to it, 3) said “these are thy Gods”

So, do you still think venerating a crucifix is the same thing as what the Israelites did?
You might not realize, but idol worship entails offering sacrifice.
The mass is a sacrifice and we only offer it to God.
I have never offered a sacrifice to my crucifix, and I have never worshipped it or said it’s my God. Your comparison is completely without merit.
I will also point out you are basically saying I’m committing idolatry, and you can’t make statements like that so easily. Find me where in any of my posts I show worship towards the crucifix, that is offer sacrifice to it or call it my God, and I will repent for idolatry.

 

Well I thought everyone knew about pope honorius I deposed in the 6th ecumenical council.
It’s used all the time as evidence against the papacy.
Also, the pope is the supreme leader but he’s clearly bound by tradition and the dogmatic decisions of others before him. The TLM isn’t dogma, btw.
The reason an ecumenical council can depose a pope is because he’s no longer pope when he tries to teach heresy. You won’t see this in canon law obviously because it’s an extreme case. The bishops can assemble together and depose the pope without the popes consent because he’s not the pope anymore.
Canon law also doesn’t tell you what to do if the pope goes insane or is kidnapped and not found for years.
Extreme situations don’t need to be in canon law

 

Well I meant Eucharistic adoration as stalwart knows it, which is reserving it outside of the liturgy for extended periods of time.
He will probably say what the orthodox do isn’t Eucharistic adoration because it doesn’t look the same lol

 

Council of Chalcedon:
“inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”


This has already been decided. We worship the whole person of Christ who has human and divine natures which cannot be divided.


Catholics also say the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.
His deity and his humanity are both under the species of bread and wine.

 

You answered the question by not answering it. (Chalcedon did the same.) To worship anything other than God is idolatry. So, is the person of Jesus divine or human?

 

Jesus IS God.
The person of Jesus is both divine and human, so you can’t worship part of Him, you have to worship it all.
Let me ask you, what would worshipping one of the natures only look like?
If you only worship His divine nature do you close your eyes and pretend he’s not a man?
If you only worship His human nature do ignore He’s also the 2nd person of the trinity?


I don’t know what worshipping part of Jesus would look like…

 

It would look like either monotheism or idolatry, depending on which one of the natures we're talking about.

It is vitally important that we get this right. The future state of our souls quite literally depends upon it.

 

I mean it’s the same thing for the trinity. We worship 3 persons but it’s one God. If you’re worried about this I’d start with the trinity, not christology lol
But.
Imagine jesus appeared before you right now.
If you just fall at your feet and worship him, is this idolatry?
How can you worship only the divine nature when the human Jesus is standing in front of you?
I’d say the answer is that the divine and human natures are indivisible. It’s not like the divine nature of Christ is somewhere “up in the sky” and his human nature is what’s in front of you.
Jesus is God made flesh. And it’s ok to worship the person of God made flesh.
Idolatry is to offer worship to a person that isn’t God, but the person of Christ is hypostatically United as man and God. So it’s not idolatry.


That’s just how I’d explain it though. I honestly think this is an extremely complex and delicate subject.
More than the Bible or council or pope being infallible, the true baffling thing is that we worship 3 persons in one God, and one of those persons has a human nature.
People just get too used to it and forget how shocking this is to Muslims or jews, for example.
The Eucharist being the literal body of Christ is nothing compared to the trinity lol