Replies

So in point of fact, your argument is from silence.

Peter did not lord over other Apostles, nor did the Apostles go to Peter to ask for permission or correction. By extension, the same is true of their successors.

You are engaging in the exact same vanity, except with the Patristic writings

And you are engaging in teaching something the Church never taught. Talk about vanity...

So I ask again, what IS Jude referring to with the gainsaying of Korah?

That Korah wanted more than was assigned to him by God.

Keep in mind, by your own standard, any explaination you give that is not authenticated by the Patristic writings is no more or less conjecture than the one you disdain from me. ...And that is hypocrisy, by definition.

Patristic commentaries never ever suggested it had anything to to even remotely with the Bishop of Rome. Your statement is not hypocrisy by my standard; it is simply not what the Church taught and would therefore qualify as heresy, by definition, if you are actually an ordained cleric.

Peter did not lord over other Apostles, nor did the Apostles go to Peter to ask for permission or correction.

Peter never used a flush toilet, either. What other irrelevancies would you like to discuss?

Peter did however settle the famous dispute in Jerusalem which saw turmoil in the Church until he stood and spoke giving the "doctrinal" understanding of gentiles, for which James gave "local" rules.

By extension, the same is true of their successors.

What "extention" is that? I know of no "extention" for you to toss around like corner church theologian.

And you are engaging in teaching something the Church never taught. Talk about vanity...

Postulating is not "teaching" but I wouldn't expect you to recognize the difference between rolling grain in ones hand, and "harvesting."

So your argument is still from silence, and your definition of "heresy" is protestant except your totem is patristic instead of scriptural.

How ironic.