Isaque Suzuki

God of wonders, you are holy, holy, holy

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

Anglican Parliament Endorses Libelous Palestinian Manifesto Denying Israel’s Legitimacy https://t.co/Xs3JhcdnTG

[The Protestant Philosopher @ProtPhilosopher]

The SSPX controversy casts doubt on a key claim Catholic apologists use against Protestants. They often say that Protestants ultimately rely on private judgment to settle doctrine whereas Catholics submit to a living authority that definitively settles it for them. But, no one is the SSPX controversy is doing that. They're not just saying "obey the office holder because he holds the office." Rather, both sides are arguing "obey the office holder when what he teaches matches the tradition he's supposed to be passing on." Someone still has to judge that. Rome and the SSPX are doing just that, and they're reaching different verdicts. So, when you add the Magisterium to Scripture and Tradition, the burden to judge doctrinal content yourself doesn't disappear. It just gets relocated to the question of which claim to the Magestrium is the real one. And that gets answered by checking the claims against the deposit. And that's the same way every doctrinal question gets answered, as Protestants urge.

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@rickbrennanjr I saw this firsthand at First Baptist Church in Londrina, Brazil. Catholics leaving Rome for the gospel, without a social media post, but consistently. I've also seen the reverse movement. But the "laughing" only works if you don't look at either.

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@guicastilho10 Qual o nome do autor?

[Pastor Rick Brennan Jr @rickbrennanjr]

Much has been made of Gavin Ortlund’s statement that Roman emperors “presided” over the early ecumenical councils. Indeed, @JoshuaTCharles has called that claim “completely false” and suggested it demonstrates @GavinOrtlund’s incompetence.

However, the historical record does not support Joshua’s accusation. He is wrong on the facts, and his response reflects a regrettable turn toward personal attack rather than substantive engagement.

What are the facts?

If you read the well accepted historical sources, the language used by Gavin is entirely defensible.

Take Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III (pp. 332–353). Schaff explicitly states that the emperors:
1. convened the councils;
2. fixed the place and time;
3. provided funding and safe conduct;
4. held the presidency or presided in conjunction with patriarchs;
5. directed proceedings procedurally; and,
6. confirmed the decrees civilly.

He clearly distinguishes between imperial procedural presidency and episcopal doctrinal authority. Yet he unequivocally affirms that the emperors exercised a genuine form of presidency. This is not fringe Protestant rhetoric; it reflects well-established and widely accepted historical scholarship.

Now, let’s consider Francis Dvornik, a Catholic historian. In Emperors, Popes, and General Councils (1951), Dvornik says Constantine established the precedent of imperial convocation and that emperors or their representatives presided at sessions and directed debates. Again, he distinguishes between imperial oversight and theological authority. But the language of presidency is there.

So what do both historians agree happened at the first seven councils?

1. Nicaea (325): Constantine convened it, opened it, presided procedurally, and confirmed its decrees.

2. Constantinople I (381): Convened by Theodosius I.

3. Ephesus (431): Imperial authority determined which party prevailed.

4. Chalcedon (451): Imperial commissioners directed debate; Schaff notes that leading the sessions remained an imperial prerogative.

5. Constantinople II (553): Justinian was deeply involved.

6. Constantinople III (680–681): Imperial oversight again central.

7. Nicaea II (787): Convened under imperial authority.

In every single case, emperors convoked and exercised procedural authority. In several cases, their personal representatives presided over the sessions.

None of this means emperors defined doctrine as bishops. They did not. The theological judgments belonged to the episcopate. To dismiss as “ridiculous” the well-documented reality that emperors presided procedurally and at times significantly influenced conciliar outcomes is simply not supported by the historical record.

The real debate is not whether emperors exercised presidency in a procedural sense. Both Protestant and Catholic historians affirm that. The debate is what that means for later ecclesiology and claims about inherent ecclesial authority. Turning a terminological nuance into a character attack is not serious historical engagement.

If we’re going to have honest discussions about church history, we need to represent the historians accurately. On this issue, there is broad agreement among respected scholars across traditions. Joshua Charles, however, is neither an academically trained historian nor a theologian: yet he speaks with unwarranted certainty amplified by a very loud megaphone.

Let me end with a personal note. I have read everything published by Dr. Ortlund, watched many of his lectures and videos, and have had the privilege of studying under him. He is one of the most irenic and careful scholars I know. This exchange says far more about the temperament and posture of Joshua Charles than it does about Dr. Ortlund’s scholarship or integrity.

[Pastor Rick Brennan Jr @rickbrennanjr]

Below is a post by @Robeno suggesting that anyone who denies Roman Catholic authority and doctrine will be “very (unhappily) surprised” at the pearly gates. In other words, that salvation ultimately comes only through the Roman Catholic Church. Why would someone make such a claim?

Because this has been the historic teaching of Rome. From the Council of Trent, through Vatican I, and into mid-20th-century catechesis, the logic was clear: rejection of Roman Catholic doctrine and authority placed one’s soul in grave danger. This was explicitly taught to generations of Catholics—including me—through the Baltimore Catechism in the early 1960s.

This language was pastorally softened at the Second Vatican Council, but it was never formally repudiated (which it can’t do because the earlier dogmas are infallible teachings). In addition, for Catholics who were well catechized and later chose to leave the Church, the warning did not disappear, it merely became implicit. To depart the Roman church knowingly was still understood to place one’s soul in grave danger of eternal damnation. This threat continues to exert real spiritual and psychological force long after belief itself has eroded.

This helps explain why it is so difficult for someone to leave Roman Catholicism, even when they no longer believes what it teaches. For example, recent surveys indicate that roughly 70% of those who identify as Roman Catholic do not believe that the Eucharist is the physical body and blood of Christ, a defining infallible dogma of Roman Catholic theology. If they no longer believe the central teaching, why do they remain?

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the lingering fear of eternal consequences weighs heavily in that decision. It certainly did for me. I left the Church 51 years ago, but not without first wrestling deeply with the fear that Rome itself had taught me to carry.

What ultimately compelled me forward was not rebellion, but prayerful reflection, sustained study of Scripture, and a careful examination of Rome’s own historical claims. Over time, I came to the settled conviction that salvation is by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ: not by my faithfulness or obedience to the Roman Catholic Church, but by Christ alone and his finished work.

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

... Kierkegaard se preocupava que muitos cristãos interpretavam a Bíblia "objetivamente" para se defenderem contra o potencial transformador do texto: "Estar sozinho com a Sagrada Escritura! Não ouso! Se eu abro - qualquer passagem - ela me prende de imediato; ela me pergunta [...] Você fez o que leu ali? [...] Mas também é possível se defender contra a Palavra de Deus [...] Pegue a Sagrada Escritura, tranque sua porta - mas então pegue dez dicionários, vinte e cinco comentários, então você pode lê-la, tão calma e friamente quanto você lê anúncios de jornal"

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@AlBuffalo2nite the scripture interprets itself

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@YourCalvinist I can't believe, I used to work hearing the movie, I'll try this loop video

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

Worth reading

[Młody i Reformowany @Dejmien23]

Papism officially is over.

https://t.co/vzbky3SSmz

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

Horn's dilemma is false. Between Roman Catholic totalitarianism and deism exists the pilgrim church - God's people preserved through the centuries, not by institutional succession, but by faithfulness to the Word and the Spirit.
For those who need a global institution to validate their faith, perhaps there is no alternative. But for those who trust in Christ's promises - "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18) - the true church has always existed and will always exist, whether in cathedrals or catacombs, whether numerous or as the "seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal" (1 Kings 19:18).
The Reformation did not create a new church - it merely made publicly visible the church that had always existed in the shadows of Roman persecution

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@Catholic_Iam @5solas Thanks God we don't consider him infalible

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@epg80 @JackPosobiec like North Korea

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@JackPosobiec We don't need another Inquisition 🙏

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

846. Como deve entender-se esta afirmação, tantas vezes repetida pelos Padres da Igreja? Formulada de modo positivo, significa que toda a salvação vem de Cristo-Cabeça pela Igreja que é o seu Corpo:

O santo Concílio «ensina, apoiado na Sagrada Escritura e na Tradição, que esta Igreja, peregrina na terra, é necessária à salvação. De facto, só Cristo é mediador e caminho de salvação. Ora, Ele torna-Se-nos presente no seu Corpo, que é a Igreja. Ao afirmar-nos expressamente a necessidade da fé e do Baptismo, Cristo confirma-nos, ao mesmo tempo, a necessidade da própria Igreja, na qual os homens entram pela porta do Baptismo. É por isso que não se podem salvar aqueles que, não ignorando que Deus, por Jesus Cristo, fundou a Igreja Católica como necessária, se recusam a entrar nela ou a nela perseverar» (341).

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@sola_chad Protesting against a moral value

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@klautaum @igor_037 É verdade @klautaum, obrigado pelo tom respeitoso, vou procurar nas fontes primárias na próxima vez

[Isaque Suzuki @isuzuki]

@Truth_Wins86 @Protestia V2 is "doctrine development"

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

Really terrible answer from Pope Leo. God Himself prescribes the death penalty in the Bible. Is the Pope saying that God is "not pro-life"? And who exactly is advocating for "inhumane treatment of immigrants"? What sort of inhumane treatment is he referring to? Deportations? Also, how can he say that "nobody has all the truth" on any of these issues? We know the truth on abortion. It isn't complicated. Awful stuff from the Pope. Truly horrendous on about five different levels.