@needGod_net Why then did the Apostles perform miracles?
Oh yeah, further vindication: "God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles."
@brycejofficial 1. Rome, in some sense, is SUPERIOR in authority to other churches. 2. The scope of that authority is universal. 3. In some sense, it is necessary that I agree with that Church. 4. That Church is governed by a single head who received authority from the head of the apostles.
@barrelagedfaith@ErickYbarra3 One for you, Erick: A LDS is discerning whether he should leave for Catholicism or stay LDS. He prays for God to help. The next day, his photo of Joseph Smith begins to drip with myrrh. Given the recent concentration on miracles, what saith Erick?
@RomanosOrthodox When you can't engage the argument, you clutch pearls and block your opponent.
Your readers can see the condition "IF". And yes, IF the Council Fathers thought a council could have ecumenical status without the approval of the Bishop of Rome, that's Protestant.
@RomanosOrthodox@krokul321@Heisbaldwin@AllanRuhl Yes, if they thought they could have a valid Council without the Pope’s ratification. That’s the paradox of their decision, they “excommunicated” the one person they needed to validate the Council.
Unless, of course, like a good Protestant, you also reject Nicaea II.
@RomanosOrthodox@krokul321@Heisbaldwin@AllanRuhl Quote the relevant text and show us how the EXPLICIT referent isn’t the Roman Pontiff.
You won’t do it, because you know you’re twisting a pretzel.
Your own Councils and Bishops are useful only in so far as they agree with you. Why? Because you’re a Protestant.
@RomanosOrthodox@krokul321@Heisbaldwin@AllanRuhl I gave you the words of the Council and you twisted them like a pretzel to fit your protestant understanding.
"Undefiled unto the end" is EXCIPILTLY referring to the Roman Pontiff, and you embarrass yourself by bending over backwards to deny this.
@JamesRiver63635@ErickYbarra3 Mormons would agree with the "creed" (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to) in 1 Cor 15.
Begin to see the problem?
@RomanosOrthodox@krokul321@Heisbaldwin@AllanRuhl The text is EXPLICIT that this refers to the Roman Pontiff.
I leave you with this: I concede the mast is broken, the sails are torn, there’s a cannonball hole blasted into the side of the ship, and the crew are drunk. But the promise of our Lord is, the ship WILL make its Port!
@ErickYbarra3 I’m currently having a conversation with a Russian Orthodox where he literally said the Bishop of Rome is a “local” Bishop, and there’s nothing to see (no pun intended) here.
@RomanosOrthodox@krokul321@Heisbaldwin@AllanRuhl The Council said the promise that the Roman Pontiff would remain UNDEFILED UNTO THE END is rooted in Christ's promise that St. Peter's faith would not fail.
I'm asking honestly, what's there to interpret?
@RomanosOrthodox@krokul321@Heisbaldwin@AllanRuhl Is the part about you contradicting your own Councils what’s incoherent?
If you can’t trust your church’s Councils or bishops, by what authority do you claim the Roman Pontiff a heretic?
A: You pick and choose, like a good protestant.
@RomanosOrthodox@krokul321@Heisbaldwin@AllanRuhl Again, going against your own Councils with mere assertions. You judge your own Councils to be deficient, as well as your bishops. Apparently you are the one who sits in the Apostolic See. Congratulations, you're a protestant.