I suppose this has gone on more than too long.
PT, you’ve managed to embrace Feeneyism and violate a Decree of the Council of Trent in just a few short paragraphs. That would seem to set you up for condemnation from the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and the Protestants, no mean feat.
+John Chrysostomos, in his Homily VI on Titus, had sound advice for Christians dealing with the promoters of novel and heretical teachings:
“”Contentions,” he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue? How then does he elsewhere say, “If God peradventure will give them repentance” (2 Tim. ii. 25.); but here, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself”? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, “being condemned of himself”? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned.”
Despite your most earnest efforts to instruct the unlearned, no doubt...
PT, you've managed to embrace Feeneyism and violate a Decree of the Council of Trent in just a few short paragraphs.
And you have chosen to preen rather than think. I already demonstrated how you can not substantiate your claim of "contradiction" in violation Trent, nor can you demonstrate Feenyism without ignoring my qualifier in taking up YOUR challenge.
Now, let us demonstrate your incompetence with "Homily VI on Titus."
Would you argue there is, in principle "nothing to be gained" by answering whether it is Rome or The East that is in error?
What manner of "admonishment" have YOU brought to the table aside from an exceedingly verbose "nuh-uh!" with a dash of "you're dumb, and nobody likes you?"
By all means, quote the saints, but like Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda," orangutans may quote Nietzsche, "they just don't understand him."