Timeline for Changes in Rome since Trent versus the Evangelicals
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 1:55 | comment | added | Dan | Thanks @Susan that appears to be the same one | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 1:54 | history | edited | Dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
updated link
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 1:49 | comment | added | Susan | Link is defunct. Is it this one? | |
| Mar 23, 2012 at 14:10 | comment | added | Dan | I am not Roman Catholic. My intention was not to bash the Roman Catholic faith. My intention was to present the findings and cite my source, which was a nun. Apprising.or was only cited because the original website was down and Apprising.org had her content posted. My main point I was attempting to make is that it seems that the Roman Catholic faith has remained stable in their beliefs while Evangelicals have shifted in theirs, however Roman Catholics do seem to be giving the appearance that they have shifted also (but this is not the case). | |
| Mar 23, 2012 at 8:21 | comment | added | cwallenpoole | @MarcGravell I deleted a couple of my comments because I think we were out of sync in our conversation and they were not really "on topic" anymore. | |
| Mar 23, 2012 at 8:14 | comment | added | Marc Gravell | @cwallenpoole yes, and I noted "neither does it automatically mean they are right or all-knowing". Back on-topic, honestly, I'm not actually looking for anyone to debunk that position; my only aim was to note "this position exists". No-one here need answer it. | |
| Mar 23, 2012 at 8:12 | comment | added | cwallenpoole | @MarcGravell Ah. OK. But then I might counter that there are people who have argued that man has never walked on the moon. | |
| Mar 23, 2012 at 8:04 | comment | added | cwallenpoole | @MarcGravell I generally find that sites which feature articles whose titles actively damn their opponents are often inaccurate in their content and frequently mis-portray the arguments of their opponents. Unfortunately, apprising.org happens to be one of those sites. As I speak, the second title under the "Roman Catholicism" topic calls my faith idolatry. I don't really find such mentalities to be conducive to intellectual discourse, and that is why you will never see me cite Catholic Answers (who I view as guilty of similar straw-man arguments). | |
| Mar 22, 2012 at 22:20 | comment | added | Marc Gravell | @cwallenpoole not my specialist subject, but : "The formula “let him be anathema” is a traditional expression that ecumenical councils used when making infallible definitions." - again, not my area, but this article suggests that may not always be the case. | |
| Mar 22, 2012 at 18:32 | vote | accept | Nate Bunney | ||
| Mar 22, 2012 at 18:32 | vote | accept | Nate Bunney | ||
| Mar 22, 2012 at 18:32 | |||||
| Mar 22, 2012 at 18:21 | comment | added | cwallenpoole | In addition to that, it is arguable alarmist and it decidedly mis-portrays Catholic theology on a number of points (whether this is conscious or not is up to interpretation of the reader). The anathemas of the councils, for example, are judgements/sentences and not a dogma. As it is not a dogma, it is not subject to infallibility and that makes her entire concluding section not only irrelevant, but misleading too. | |
| Mar 22, 2012 at 18:16 | comment | added | cwallenpoole | The article you link to does not actually have an accurate understanding of "anathema". Yes, formal anathema as performed by the Pope may have 12 priests with candle, but that is not the meaning intended by conciliar documents (which is closer to "major excommunication"). | |
| Mar 22, 2012 at 17:15 | history | answered | Dan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |