Author Topic: Will Orthodox convert by 2054? (Read 7347 times)

kamalayka · « **Reply #60 on:** December 09, 2009, 09:54:45 PM »

Why is a traditionalist or sede vacante any more or less reliable than the PNCC??

From an outside perspective, they are schisms.

If I were to accept the PNCC as true, then am I to believe that the true Church of Jesus Christ resides only in the geographical area of Northeastern US?

TheD · « **Reply #61 on:** December 09, 2009, 10:48:39 PM »

Quote from: kamalayka

During Vatican 1, there were theologians and bishops in the Council and elsewhere who honestly did not believe in papal infallibility. They were publicly against it being defined as a Dogma.

However, once it was made Dogma, they immediately accepted it, no question asked-in other words, "Rome has spoken."

There were a few here and there who did not, but most were obedient the the Mother Church.

It would seem that V2 contradicts earlier Councils, but if it did, then Jesus would be a liar.

He said that hell shall NEVER prevail.

If Benedict is not the true pope, then where is the real one?!

Dakota? China? Mexico?

Is it my neighbor Bob?

I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION BUT YOU IGNORED IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE! YOU MUST KNOW DEEP DOWN WE ARE RIGHT! BUT FEW IN THE V2 LIKE TO RESPOND TO ME!

TheD · « **Reply #62 on:** December 09, 2009, 10:54:39 PM »

Quote from: kamalayka

8.) Popes have said that a former heretic cannot become Pope. However, in the 6th century, we have a pope named Vigilius. Prior to becoming pope, he was a Monophysite! How do you explain this if you think that everything a pope write is infallible]

So all the Popes before V2 can be heretics but our modern Popes can't. How did you come to that conclusion? You condradict yourself left and right.

kamalayka · « **Reply #63 on:** December 09, 2009, 11:28:56 PM »

What I am saying is that traditionalists like to pretend that everything a pope writes is infallible.

kamalayka · « **Reply #64 on:** December 09, 2009, 11:30:47 PM »

Quote from: TheD

Quote from: kamalayka
During Vatican 1, there were theologians and bishops in the Council and elsewhere who honestly did not believe in papal infallibility. They were publicly against it being defined as a Dogma.

However, once it was made Dogma, they immediately accepted it, no question asked-in other words, "Rome has spoken."

There were a few here and there who did not, but most were obedient the the Mother Church.

It would seem that V2 contradicts earlier Councils, but if it did, then Jesus would be a liar.

He said that hell shall NEVER prevail.

If Benedict is not the true pope, then where is the real one?!

Dakota? China? Mexico?

Is it my neighbor Bob?

I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION BUT YOU IGNORED IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE! YOU MUST KNOW DEEP DOWN WE ARE RIGHT! BUT FEW IN THE V2 LIKE TO RESPOND TO ME!

I don't think I did.

I just am completely confused as to how someone can take the initiative to actually judge a council.

You said you can but you didn't explain by what authority.

(Neither did you tell me who the true pope is.)