According to Catholicism, what must one believe and do to be saved?

chevyontheriver said:

Which one? The one about the invalidity of the pope?

Click to expand...

I didn’t argue about the invalidity of the pope.

chevyontheriver said:

Yup.

'Solely responsible' ? Did I say or even imply that the pope was solely responsible for quashing the Arian heresy? You put up a straw man there.

Click to expand...

Nope but the poster that I responded to did. I just started talking to you so why don’t you y back and read the previous posts.

chevyontheriver said:

Thank you. What, in your opinion, was the role of bishop Hosius and the two Roman priests, Vitus and Vincent, at the council? Why would the two Roman priests also be presiders at the council if the bishop of Rome had no responsibility for quashing the Arian heresy. To me it is quite clear that the pope had a hand, a substantial hand, in the quashing of the Arian heresy even if he was not personally present at the council of Nicea.

Click to expand...

Participating in a council does not equal being the persons that resolved the issues. Participants are just that.

chevyontheriver said:

The 'blather' is in minimizing his role. Also putting up the straw man that the pope was 'solely responsible'.

Click to expand...

Never argued that so the Strawman is you.

Hentenza said:

I didn’t argue about the invalidity of the pope.

Nope but the poster that I responded to did. I just started talking to you so why don’t you y back and read the previous posts.

Participating in a council does not equal being the persons that resolved the issues. Participants are just that.

Never argued that so the Strawman is you.

Click to expand...

I got the ‘solely responsible’ thing directly from your post to me. So the straw man is back on you.

chevyontheriver said:

I got the ‘solely responsible’ thing directly from your post to me. So the straw man is back on you.

Click to expand...

The solely responsible is what the other poster claimed not me. The Strawman is back on you.

Hentenza said:

The solely responsible is what the other poster claimed not me. The Strawman is back on you.

Click to expand...

I didn't even read what the other poster wrote. I DID read what you wrote. Own what you wrote. If you need to revise what you wrote to indicate that you were only quoting some other poster, then go ahead. Until then, it's yours what you post and theirs what they post.

chevyontheriver said:

I didn't even read what the other poster wrote. I DID read what you wrote. Own what you wrote. If you need to revise what you wrote to indicate that you were only quoting some other poster, then go ahead. Until then, it's yours what you post and theirs what they post.

Click to expand...

You reminded me of that meme about arguing on the Internet being like competing in the Special Olympics.

Accept that this originated with @concretecamper 's strawman and move on.

prodromos said:

Accept that this originated with @concretecamper 's strawman and move on.

Click to expand...

I suggest you look up what a stawman argument is. Ugh

chevyontheriver said:

I didn't even read what the other poster

Click to expand...

So how could you possibly know under what context I posted my answer?

chevyontheriver said:

I DID read what you wrote.

Click to expand...

You actually didn’t. Reading out of context is assuming meaning.

chevyontheriver said:

Own what you wrote.

Click to expand...

I owned what I wrote based on the context of my answer to the other poster. I don’t own what your biased mind assumed I wrote.

chevyontheriver said:

If you need to revise what you wrote to indicate that you were only quoting some other poster, then go ahead. Until then, it's yours what you post and theirs what they post.

Click to expand...

I’m not revising anything. You need your learn how to conduct conversations in forums like this. I’m surprised that after 10 years here you still have not figured that out.

concretecamper said:

I suggest you look up what a stawman argument is. Ugh

Click to expand...

You're right. I should have said "logical fallacy". I have no idea what a "stawman" is though

prodromos said:

You're right. I should have said "logical fallacy". I have no idea what a "stawman" is though

Click to expand...

Your posts demonstrate you don't. So sad, find out what it means before you just parrot others

So blinded by hubris, you still can't see it

concretecamper said:

But it's a fact that it was a council in Rome in 430 that first condemned Nestorius and called for a general council (which ended up being Ephesus) to combat this heresy.

It is also a fact that Constantinople took its lead from Pope Damascus and a Roman Council held on 378.

Let's stick to facts boys and girls.

Click to expand...

Ok Children, can anyone offer a response?

I suspect at this point the answer is no. So go ahead and respond with more strawman answers. Wait, what is a strawman?

concretecamper said:

Ok Children, can anyone offer a response?

I suspect at this point the answer is no. So go ahead and respond with more strawman answers. Wait, what is a strawman?

Click to expand...

You said "stawman", not "strawman". Lern tu spel, fule.

concretecamper said:

It is also a fact that Constantinople took its lead from Pope Damascus and a Roman Council held on 378.

Click to expand...

What council was held in Rome in 378? And I assume you mean Pope Damasus, not Damascus?

jas3 said:

What council was held in Rome in 378? And I assume you mean Pope Damasus, not Damascus?

Click to expand...

Spell correction is a pain. But to answer you question:

"This synod is distinct from the more famous Council of Rome in 382 AD (also under Damasus), which is traditionally associated with discussions on the biblical canon and doctrinal matters following the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD). Some sources refer to a doctrinal "tome" (statement) issued by Damasus and a Roman council around 378, which influenced Eastern churches on Trinitarian theology against Arian-related heresies."

"The Tome of Damasus refers to a significant theological document and collection of 24 canons issued by Pope Damasus I and endorsed by a Synod of Rome (historically dated between 377 and 382 AD, with the formulas specifically accepted by the East in 379).
It served as a definitive response to prevalent 4th-century heresies and a strong assertion of Roman papal authority. Key aspects include:
Anti-Heretical Focus: The Tome was primarily directed against Arianism (which denied the full divinity of Christ) and Apollinarianism (which denied Christ had a human soul).
Trinitarian Doctrine: It solidified the Western Church's stance on the Trinity, emphasizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance.
Papal Primacy: The Tome and its associated synods marked the first time the Roman See was officially referred to as the "Apostolic See". It asserted that Rome’s primacy came from the authority of St. Peter rather than imperial or synodal decrees.
Historical Context (379 AD): In 379, the Council of Antioch formally accepted the doctrinal formulas contained in Damasus's Tome, signaling a rare moment of theological alignment between the Western and Eastern churches during the Trinitarian controversies.'

"In October 379, the Council of Antioch (also referred to as a "great synod") was a significant gathering of 153 Eastern bishops. Presided over by Meletius of Antioch, the council marked a critical turning point in the restoration of Nicene Orthodoxy following the death of the Arian Emperor Valens and the accession of Theodosius I.

Key Outcomes and Significance
Establishment of Doctrinal Unity: The council formally accepted the "Tome of the Westerns" (a dogmatic letter from Pope Damasus I and the Western bishops), thereby establishing doctrinal agreement between the Eastern and Western churches regarding the Holy Trinity.
Restoration of Orthodoxy: It served to consolidate the "Neo-Nicene" position in the East, effectively ending the dominance of Arianism in the region.
Settling the Meletian Schism: The council attempted to resolve the long-standing schism in Antioch between the supporters of Meletius and Paulinus. A temporary agreement was reached where leading presbyters vowed not to seek episcopal consecration, instead agreeing to follow whichever rival bishop survived the other.
Prelude to the Second Ecumenical Council: The 379 synod laid the groundwork for the First Council of Constantinople in 381, where Meletius would also preside before his death.
Support for Gregory of Nazianzus: The council supported the appointment of Gregory of Nazianzus to the see of Constantinople, a move crucial for the upcoming ecumenical deliberations."

The tome of Damasus is very orthodox. There isn't even a hint of the "filioque" in his statements about the Holy Spirit.
What I am failing to see is any evidence that Damasus' tome was influential in defeating the heresies in the East. The Roman council of 378 was primarily dealing with accusations made against pope Damasus.
Claims are being made but I'm not seeing any receipts.

concretecamper said:

The council formally accepted the "Tome of the Westerns" (a dogmatic letter from Pope Damasus I and the Western bishops), thereby establishing doctrinal agreement between the Eastern and Western churches regarding the Holy Trinity.

Click to expand...

ChatGPT here is referring to "Canon V" of Constantinople I, which is considered spurious, but even if we say for the sake of argument that it's genuine, all it says is that the council recognizes those who accept the Tome as orthodox. That's a far cry from Constantinople I "taking its lead" from the Tome.

jas3 said:

ChatGPT here is referring to "Canon V" of Constantinople I, which is considered spurious, but even if we say for the sake of argument that it's genuine, all it says is that the council recognizes those who accept the Tome as orthodox. That's a far cry from Constantinople I "taking its lead" from the Tome.

Click to expand...

It is not chat gtp. I cross referenced multiple sources and confirmed what I posted is fact.

In fact, Rome led the way in multiple councils. And as was clarified before, maybe not by the Pope's personal attendance but by his leadership in orthodoxy

Ephasus it was Damasus
Chalcedon it was Leo
Nicea II it was Harian

The East owes it's very Christology to Rome. You're welcome.

I'll bow out echoing the Church Fathers at Chalcedon after hearing Leo's Tome , "Peter has spoken through Leo"

concretecamper said:

I'll bow out echoing the Church Fathers at Chalcedon after hearing Leo's Tome , "Peter has spoken through Leo"

Click to expand...

After the fathers had confirmed it aligned with St Cyril's christology.

prodromos said:

After the fathers had confirmed it aligned with St Cyril's christology.

Click to expand...

It didn't completely align. Those who were Cyril loyalist formed the Oriental Orthodox Church. Those who followed Leo are now Catholic and Orthodox.

So you recognize Papal authority without even knowing it

concretecamper said:

In fact, Rome led the way in multiple councils. And as was clarified before, maybe not by the Pope's personal attendance but by his leadership in orthodoxy

Ephasus it was Damasus
Chalcedon it was Leo
Nicea II it was Harian

Click to expand...

Who was it in Constantinople II? Did the Council Fathers follow Vigilius' leadership in orthodoxy?

concretecamper said:

The East owes it's very Christology to Rome. You're welcome.

Click to expand...

The East that anathematized a pope for monothelitism owes its Christology to Rome? That's an... unusual way to read the history.