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.
Baloney. I never claimed to have read his writings in any detail. Don't put words into my mouth which I did not say.
Yet what is there of Belloc's writings which are not covered elsewhere (if but piecemeal) and even from before that man was born?
That I have examined the arguments (generally speaking) for many years now, reading and searching, comparing and testing things - and remain unconvinced of what was referred to by many in the 16th thru 19th centuries as Romanism, does not equate with my own contentions to having been "refuted" as you so blithely claim -- for yourself and others may accept the story-line, but many others have sound reasons for not accepting Romish "story".
there you go again, damning all the Orthodox who never looked upon the bishop of Rome as their own "pope".
'There was no singular "pope" presiding over the entire Church, from the beginning of the Church. There was no one who got away with making such a claim for many long centuries.
Sorry mister, but I am capable of reading history on my own, which includes examining things from perspective other than of preconceived acceptance for whatever it is that the Church of Rome claims as it's own singular & sole prerogatives.
That doesn't make me a "heretic" in the eyes of God, which are the only eyes as it were, which truly matter.
Spoken like a man who has no conception of what is to have been "born again" having been baptized with the Holy Spirit.
It matters not one whit that many claim to have been "born again" -- but have not been.
That some, or even many are wrong about certain things -- does not make everyone who mouths the same, or similar words to be equally in error.
If you were acquainted with the Holy Spirit -- personally -- yourself -- and if you understood more completely what it is that even the RCC says about such visitation/indwelling of the right and Holy Spirit among those outside of the visible confines of their own ekklesia, I believe you would not so casually say things such as you frequently on these pages do.
To the limited Catholic mind; this probably seems true.
Thank GOD for that!
One thing in 'common' your BAD POPES THRU HISTORY had:
they DID believe in Petrine authority and clung to the fanciful claims of ROME about the Eucharist.