Then, you send me to some "catholic tract" after repeating your initial claims -- which I just showed you were not quite as true as you often make these various claims out out be?
What is this -- a one way conversation?
It seems like you don't hear (and understand) anything much other than your own opinions.
Why should I be impressed with those people? What of the majority of those same classes of theologians who historically did not, and still to this day do not convert?
Besides, as for some of these so-called "leading...theologians", when they become apologists for 'Rome' it is often that their distinctly Romish (adopted) viewpoints are shown to be seriously flawed, just the same as those views have long been seriously flawed, for they most usually are nothing but the same errors, though often dressed up in new-ish appearing clothing...
One could say that "several articles" have been written establishing that the activities of mankind are a significant factor in so-called "climate change", and which the present (partially dopey?) Catholic "pope" himself mistakes as being among that which is "truth".
I should be impressed at the same time I am being insulted? Snake handlers?
Just WHERE do you get off talking to ME like that? huh?
I "seriously study" just about every_single_day.
I'm sure that could be informative. But where does he get his own information? From sources I can access more directly than going through Belloc' -- and ALREADY HAVE.
Yet as for heresies -- if the man is a papist -- he obviously must have missed at least one of those...
The only real truth to that includes aspects which betray the Church of Rome as being foremost, or chief, or highest place of this so-called "Petrine authority", for the Scriptures as they are, are not (and never were) reliant upon the word of any "pope" to be considered Scripture (unless a person is a brainwashed/programmed Roman Catholic, perhaps. which then leaves it to be a thing more of imagination than truth itself)
What is referred to as capital "C" Catechism was chiefly a product of later centuries. There goes significant portions of "for all ages". Wave bye-bye to that portion of your claim...
And here follows yet another version of one of your oft-repeated accusations. I suppose saying such provides some sense of security for yourself? That's how it comes across;
That's a quite a grab-bag assortment you have there. Rev. Wright, Moonies and Mormons have nothing much to do with "Four Square Gospel" preachers.
I know one of the latter. The man is capable of hearing (and acting upon) guidance of the Holy Spirit, myself having noticed that in my own interactions which I had with him, some years ago now. Perhaps the same could not be said for not all Four Square Gospel 'pastors', but for at least that one, he's real enough -- although a more humble man is difficult to find, perhaps...while no one that I know of pretends that man to be "perfect", himself included...
The so-called "mainline" are not all that much mainstream (by the numbers of adherents) within U.S. Christian setting.
There far more (collectively) of various flavored non-denominationals than there are the badly shrunken Episcopalian Church (which itself splinted some time ago, to a larger extent over the very issue). The Methodists may soon experience something of the same...while the nation as a whole does appear to be distancing itself, backsliding away from Godliness. Catholicism is not entirely immune to that, generally speaking -- having had within their own ranks for many years -- known homosexuals as "priests" (even if those who were known to be inclined that way were claiming themselves "celibate").
The Baptists (particularly the Southern Baptists) are not known for doing this sort of ordaining you speak of -- and if they did -- would be dis-invited, cast out from the Southern Baptist Conference. Each of the SB's are independent Churches -- which send representatives to the Conference -- who are sent to follow the Spirit and what they themselves as individuals know of the Lord, the best they can, rather than being representative of the sentiments or viewpoints arrived at by way of majority vote, or something along lines of being "representative" in that way.
You just threw large swaths of various "Orthodox" under the bus --- as "heretics".
Singular papacy -- one bishop of bishops, one "bishop" outranking all others -- was not the order-of-the-day for many long centuries of the Christian Church.
Take the "heretic" talk -- and talk it into your own bathroom mirror.
If you claim to have read the great essayist Hillaire Belloc’s “The Great Heresies” you would not repeat questions that have been previously raised and interminably refuted. So you don’t want to be “impressed” by such preeminent American Lutherans such as Richard Neuhaus who authored books, taught, preached, and extensively debated for decades the subject of Christianity and who converted to Catholicism.
How about Francis Beckwith who became a philosophy professor at Baylor University and president of the Evangelical Theological Society (E.T.S.) a national body of Evangelical theologians who converted to Catholicism?
Or try Sweden’s megachurch pastor Ulf Elkman?
Not enough? Try Wheaton College’s Prof. Joshua Hochschild.
OK, I get it “impressed,” until their conversions.
You refer to a one-way conversation. That’s because it essentially boils down to an acknowledgement of Petrine Authority (for which there are libraries of books and scriptural references in support thereof) or not.
In the latter case its a freewheeling exercise that allows for the Moonies, the corrupted Black churches (Los Angeles First AME that gave OJ a rousing welcome following his acquittal on double murder charges); the Mormons, the Billy Grahams, the Jim Jones;, and David Koresh’s and the list goes goes on right down to the born-again gobbledegook. And yes, snake handlers included.
They all have one thing in common they do not believe in Petrine authority and propound the heretical denial of the Eucharist.
Enough said.