There are 1.4 billions Catholic in the world, they must be all idiots and morons.
Luke 22:32; “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.””
Peter doubted Him and denied Him thrice, but eventually he was martyred in Rome to bear witness to the Lord.
Other baseless accusations. But like I said I have no problem. You will be held accountable, make no mistake.
Origen himself was open to correction, this is what I have repeteadly shown you and you have never aknowledged it.
Obviously violence against someone because he is an heretic is not justifiable. But impeccability was never granted to anyone unfortunately.
And the persecutions of heretic was certainly not an Catholic esclusive, at the time
Also Joan D’Arc has been canonized. Like I said burning someone is never justified for any reason whatsoever.
For the Wittenburg Reformers, that’s easy – their view of the Eucharist is identical to that of the Fathers.
A question the rabbis wrestled with!
As I understand it, the consensus was that the spirit of a person, when manifesting as visible, took the appearance of the missing physical form – pretty much what your last question says.
Martin Luther, the man who according to many occupied the moral high ground over the Catholic Church, was guilty of the following crimes.
And these are not accusations invented by Catholic polemicists. They are documented in Luther’s own writings and in historical documents acknowledged by Protestant scholars and institutions.
1. Luther openly encouraged the killing of rebellious peasants.
During the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525, Luther published Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, in which he urged the authorities to suppress the rebellion with lethal violence.
He wrote: “Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly”
He also compared the rebellious peasants to rabid dogs that had to be killed.
The revolt was eventually crushed, with tens of thousands of peasants losing their lives. Luther did not personally carry out these killings, nor can every death be attributed to him. Nevertheless, his explicit encouragement of lethal repression is a matter of historical record.
Source: Martin Luther, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525).
2. Luther advocated burning Jewish synagogues and destroying Jewish homes.
In his notorious treatise On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), Luther wrote: “First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools”
And immediately afterward: “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”
Sieg Heil, Martin! Adolf would have been proud. His recommendations also included confiscating Jewish religious writings, prohibiting rabbis from teaching, imposing severe restrictions on Jewish communities, and expelling Jews from Christian territories.
These were not accusations made against Luther by his enemies. They were recommendations Luther himself explicitly advocated in writing.
Source: Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), translated in Luther’s Works, vol. 47.
3. Luther endorsed the possibility of executing religious dissenters, including Anabaptists.
In 1536, Luther approved a memorandum prepared by the Wittenberg theologians concerning the punishment of Anabaptists.
The document declared: “We conclude that in this case the obstinate may be killed.”
It defended the possibility of capital punishment for certain forms of obstinate religious dissent, not merely for participation in violent rebellion.
To be historically precise, this sentence comes from a collective memorandum approved by Luther, rather than from a treatise written by him alone. Luther also acknowledged that rulers could exercise clemency. Nevertheless, his endorsement of a document permitting the execution of religious dissenters is historically documented.
Source: Healing Memories: Reconciling in Christ (2010), Appendix A, containing the 1536 memorandum.
And this, apparently, was the man who occupied the moral high ground over the Catholic Church.
The man who openly urged the killing of rebellious peasants, advocated the destruction of Jewish synagogues and homes, and endorsed the possibility of executing religious dissenters was supposedly the great moral reformer entitled to stand in judgment over the wickedness and corruption of Rome.
This was the pi…ous man who occupied the moral high ground over the Catholic Church, according to many. And I’m not doing whataboutism, I’m supporting what I have stated: at the time nobody had his hands clean.
I was talking about those who endorse the symbolic understanding of the Sacrament. Whether the Wittenburg Reformers had an orthodox understanding is something that should be demonstrated, it was certainly better than Zwingli’s, though, which was so thoroughly erroneous and against the Fathers that I wonder how his views proved to be so successful.
There’s a problem here: if the Roman church is not what the term “catholic” describes, then its councils are by definition not ecumenical.
There’s no such thing. The original “protestants” per the Diet of Speyer (“Lutherans”), the followers of Zwingli, and the Quakers, for example, are farther from each other than is possible to sum up in one term – effectively making the term “Protestant” a theological straw man. (Something Luther recognized, BTW, when he said better to submit to Rome than agree with the Zwinglians.)
I will reply to that comment very soon, Terry, sorry I have yet to adress it.
He has posted a video and he is very much “him” although his mannerism is quite ambiguous. 
Sorry I have misunderstood what you were talking about, Terry. I’m sorry lol.
I don’t see how this establishes that the post-schism Catholic councils are non-ecumenical. It presupposes a particular understanding of catholicity and conciliar authority which itself requires justification.
First, catholicity cannot simply mean the numerical inclusion of every Christian communion, nor does an ecumenical council necessarily require the participation of every major episcopal see.
Consider Constantinople I (381). It was essentially an Eastern council, without Roman participation, and was subsequently recognized as ecumenical, notably at Chalcedon in 451. Yet both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept its ecumenicity.
Therefore, the absence of particular churches from a council cannot, by itself, establish that the council lacks ecumenical authority.
You might respond that Constantinople I was eventually received by the universal Church, whereas the post-schism Catholic councils were not received by the Eastern Orthodox.
But that raises the crucial question: what independently establishes which ecclesial communion constitutes the universal Church whose reception is authoritative?
If universal reception means acceptance by every Christian communion, then Chalcedon itself presents a problem, given its rejection by the non-Chalcedonian churches.
If, instead, universal reception means acceptance by the true Catholic Church, then you must first establish which communion constitutes that Church. You cannot simply assume that the Eastern Orthodox communion possesses this identity while denying it to Rome, since that is precisely the ecclesiological question under dispute.
Moreover, Rome’s claim to possess a distinctive authority within the universal Church is not merely a post-schism invention, as I have shown repeatedly and as was even aknowledged by the Protestant historian Von Harnack.
In short, the mere occurrence of a schism does not establish that the bishops remaining in communion with Rome lost the authority to act collegially for the Catholic Church.
To reject the ecumenicity of their subsequent councils, you would need to establish that Rome ceased to belong to, or could no longer authoritatively represent, the Catholic Church. The absence of Eastern Orthodox participation or reception is not sufficient unless you have already justified why that communion’s recognition is constitutive of ecumenicity.
And appealing to the absence of such recognition without establishing that premise would simply assume the conclusion.
No such thing exists since that is not remotely biblical.
Since when? That isn’t from the Fathers, so how can it be orthodox?
That’s not remotely orthodox.
Where are you getting these notions?
Read some of Martin Chemnitz/ major works. I think he is closer to “historical and patristic roots” than was Trent.
Is a caricature.
Actually it can be derived from the teachings of Jesus.
Ah, nothing like taking a statement out of context, and in a very juvenile fashion, too. If Jesus meant what your position claims, then Paul was disobedient.
Only if you deny that God is faithful.
You mean the prohibition of images?
That was first violated by Yahweh Himself – He commanded that images be put in the Tabernacle and the Temple both, and blessed a Temple to which men had added further images. Thus the prohibition was not a simple literal material command, it has a deeper meaning.
I have never claimed that Lutherans, Zwinglians, Quakers, and other Protestant traditions agree on every doctrine, the foundational principle I have identified is the claimed right to reject the authoritative doctrinal judgments of the Church on the basis of an alternative theological judgment regarded as superior to them.
For Luther, the decisive appeal was to Scripture. For Zwingli, it was likewise to Scripture, although his interpretation differed radically from Luther’s on the Eucharist. For the Quakers, the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit assumed a particularly prominent role.
These traditions disagree profoundly about the source and interpretation of religious authority, but they share a rejection of the proposition that the historic Church possesses a definitive teaching authority whose doctrinal judgments are binding upon them
And that is precisely the point.
When Luther and Zwingli reached mutually contradictory conclusions about the Eucharist, what universally recognized, infallible ecclesiastical authority could definitively settle their disagreement?
Each could appeal to what he believed to be the authentic teaching of Christ. Each could consider the other’s interpretation mistaken. But neither recognized a common, living ecclesiastical tribunal whose doctrinal judgment was necessarily final and binding.
So the diversity of Protestantism does not refute my point, on the contrary is precisely illustrates the problem I’m identifying: once the Church’s definitive doctrinal authority is rejected, mutually incompatible interpretations can each claim to represent authentic apostolic Christianity without accepting a common ecclesiastical authority capable of settling the controversy.
The historical question I have been asking therefore remains unanswered: where, in the Christianity of the first millennium, do we find the principle that an individual or reforming movement may legitimately reject the definitive doctrinal judgments of the Church on the authority of its own alternative interpretation, while still claiming to represent the original apostolic faith?
Pointing out that Protestants disagree among themselves does not answer that question. It makes the question all the more pressing.
Zwingli was also a general – he led troops in battle to enforce his views.
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Exodus 20:2-5)
Every time I quote Jesus, people tell me i have taken Him out of context, or I do not understand HIm or He did not mean that.
Like Love your enemies Matt 5:44
or Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt 5:48
or And call no man your father upon the earth Matt 23:9
The RCC has violated so many commandments, they have opened the doors to all Catholics to find reasons to violate them all.
Absolutely. They may have been present in physical bodies, but that was something elohim could do.
Jesus is a unique instance: an elohim could take on physical form – and it’s commonly accepted that Jesus appears thus in the Old Testament – but he “cheated” and became a physical form, thus making it not like some sort of costume but actually His own. So He qualifies as an elohim from the start, before the Incarnation, but in the Incarnation He became something new, an elohim not wearing but actually having a physical body.
At that point the Resurrection moves to something that had never before occurred.
If, as is being said, there was never any actual breach between the two communions, then without the participation of the East there could be no ecumenical councils/
A pseudo-rejection – the two sides were in agreement on doctrine, just not in how to express it. Chalcedon is thus very much a “horse of a different color”.
No – first you must decide if “organized human institution” is what constrains the definition in the first place. Given that the East and Rome were never actually out of communion, both remained holy, catholic, and apostolic, so that definition cannot stand.
Since it effectively rejected the actual unity between two branches that were never actually out of communion, of course it could no longer “authoritatively represent the Catholic Church”.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.