Apostolic councils?

[Brakelite]

That's an interesting story - and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Peter's Primacy.
The Scripture verses I presented DO.

Nice story, though . . .

Thought the analogy would go over your head.

 

[Marymog]

Constantine's false conversion and the declaration of a state religion made things worse.

Better to have Christian values as a "state religion" than Islamic values?

 

[Marymog]

True. It wasn't when the pope became corrupt. The church fell away altogether over a long period of time. Not just with one bad pope. But it began to go downhill the moment the bishops of Rome lusted after political power.

Sooooo you agree with all the doctrines/dogmas/beliefs/practices of The Church BEFORE the bishops of Rome lusted after political power?

 

[Marymog]

Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Geez, Syriac, im sure if i searched i could find more, but thats many different languages, then rome took over the faith and made all the bibles available in Latin, the language of the very few. why did they do that? BOD said they even put chains on the bibles. did Jesus and the 12 ever put scriptures under lock and chain?

Do you know why the Catholic AND Protestant Churches put "chains on the bibles."

 

[Marymog]

did Jesus and the 12 ever put scriptures under lock and chain?

No, they did not "put Scriptures under lock and chain".

Jesus and the Apostles did speak of false teachers and false doctrine and put those men that taught opposite of what they taught under lock and chain in a sense (locked them out of teaching/preaching! With the advent of Protestantism anyone can preach and teach what they want. :)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, for, crying out loud - it is because these flippin' ignominious men were the flippin' leaders, who determined tradition & doctrine, namely the flippin' papal bulls and councils, council of trent, vatican I & II. In other words, half of Catholic flippin' dogma was promulgated by these flippin' charlatans. Which part of corruption do you not understand - a little leaven, leaveneth the whole flippin' lump!

Then you really don't understand the Church.
A Pope or a Bishop doesn't "determine" Sacred Tradition OR doctrine.

YOU, like every other ignorant anti-Catholic rely on your erroneous, pre-conceived ideas about the Church but never bother to do your homework. That's why I said that debating with YOU is so easy because you expose yourself EVERY time with your lies.
Oh - I mean, your "flippin" lies . . .

 

[DNB]

Then you really don't understand the Church.
A Pope or a Bishop doesn't "determine" Sacred Tradition OR doctrine.

YOU, like every other ignorant anti-Catholic rely on your erroneous, pre-conceived ideas about the Church but never bother to do your homework. That's why I said that debating with YOU is so easy because you expose yourself EVERY time with your lies.
Oh - I mean, your "flippin" lies . . .

Right out of your own flippin' mouth, hombré.

By the accession of Pope Leo IX in 1048, a clear distinction developed between two classes of bulls of greater and less solemnity.
Papal bulls were originally issued by the pope for many kinds of communication of a public nature, but by the 13th century, papal bulls were only used for the most formal or solemn of occasions.
Today, the bull is the only written communication in which the pope will refer to himself as "Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei" ("Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God").[3] For example, when Pope Benedict XVI issued a decree in bull form, he began the document with "Benedictus, Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei".
In terms of content, the bull is simply the format in which a decree of the pope appears. Any subject may be treated in a bull, and many were and are, including statutory decrees, episcopal appointments, dispensations, excommunications, Apostolic constitutions, canonizations, and convocations.
The bull was the exclusive letter format from the Vatican until the 14th century, when the papal brief appeared.

 

[Brakelite]

Better to have Christian values as a "state religion" than Islamic values?

No it isn't. Both are anti biblical and anti freedom.

 

[Brakelite]

Sooooo you agree with all the doctrines/dogmas/beliefs/practices of The Church BEFORE the bishops of Rome lusted after political power?

No.

 

[Marymog]

No it isn't. Both are anti biblical and anti freedom.

Christian values are anti biblical?

 

[Marymog]

No.

Ok....so when did The Church become corrupt to the point Christians could no longer rely on it for truthful doctrine?

 

[amigo de christo]

I had rather watch concrete cure than listen to a word Rome or anyone influenced by her in any way has to say .
You all be blessed now .

 

[jaybird]

Do you know why the Catholic AND Protestant Churches put "chains on the bibles."

BOD said it was because bible theft was epidemic in those days. why in the world would anyone steal a bible? i mean you would have to be living under some kind of oppressive theocracy that condemned common folks from having bibles, who would do anything like that?

 

[jaybird]

No, they did not "put Scriptures under lock and chain".

Jesus and the Apostles did speak of false teachers and false doctrine and put those men that taught opposite of what they taught under lock and chain in a sense (locked them out of teaching/preaching! With the advent of Protestantism anyone can preach and teach what they want. :)

i like Jesus teaching on false teachers, He said we could spot these false teachers by their fruit, would burning people alive and torturing people be good fruit or bad fruit?

 

[Brakelite]

Christian values are anti biblical?

State enforced worship is anti biblical.

 

[Brakelite]

Ok....so when did The Church become corrupt to the point Christians could no longer rely on it for truthful doctrine?

No Christian has ever relied on the church for truthful doctrine. Jesus said He was the way, the truth, and the life. The church ought to be reliable as a source of truth... And true Christian churches can be... But even Paul did not isn't himself as a source of truth. He said go back to the word and study to check if I am correct. Even Jesus didn't present Himself as sole authority, when speaking of Himself He didn't say, believe everything I say, He gave the disciples a Bible study.

 

[jaybird]

No Christian has ever relied on the church for truthful doctrine. Jesus said He was the way, the truth, and the life. The church ought to be reliable as a source of truth... And true Christian churches can be... But even Paul did not isn't himself as a source of truth. He said go back to the word and study to check if I am correct. Even Jesus didn't present Himself as sole authority, when speaking of Himself He didn't say, believe everything I say, He gave the disciples a Bible study.

what i remember from scripture is Jesus going to church to read scripture, to honor the Father, but when it came time to teaching, and learning, they were always gathered in the towns, around the corner, by the lakeside, etc. the focus was always a group of believers being together, not turning to the church for the answers.

 

[DNB]

I had rather watch concrete cure than listen to a word Rome or anyone influenced by her in any way has to say .
You all be blessed now .

This is axiomatic, the proof is clearly in their ignominious history that there never has been apostolic succession in that lineage. I do not know what their adherents are basing their fidelity and allegiance on - ideologies of God's providence, not empirical evidence.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Right out of your own flippin' mouth, hombré.

By the accession of Pope Leo IX in 1048, a clear distinction developed between two classes of bulls of greater and less solemnity.
Papal bulls were originally issued by the pope for many kinds of communication of a public nature, but by the 13th century, papal bulls were only used for the most formal or solemn of occasions.
Today, the bull is the only written communication in which the pope will refer to himself as "Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei" ("Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God").[3] For example, when Pope Benedict XVI issued a decree in bull form, he began the document with "Benedictus, Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei".
In terms of content, the bull is simply the format in which a decree of the pope appears. Any subject may be treated in a bull, and many were and are, including statutory decrees, episcopal appointments, dispensations, excommunications, Apostolic constitutions, canonizations, and convocations.
The bull was the exclusive letter format from the Vatican until the 14th century, when the papal brief appeared.

Thank you for that completely irrelevant Wikipedia post.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with mandating the "selling of Indulgences".

Back to the drawing board, junior . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

This is axiomatic, the proof is clearly in their ignominious history that there never has been apostolic succession in that lineage. I do not know what their adherents are basing their fidelity and allegiance on - ideologies of God's providence, not empirical evidence.

Self evident .
Yeah , spiritual evidence is a better word . cause as i said , i had rather watch concrete cure
while having lotion of sulfiric acid rubbed on my skin , than to heed one word o ROME or any who follows them .
What says YE .