For Catholics to consider

[file13]

If you want to discuss where you acutally think I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to continue discussing this. But simply saying I'm wrong, then repeating that seems more like baiting than discussion.

Brother, I provided you with a link which explicitly states what "sola scriptura" actually means from a formal historical evangelical confession. All you have to do is read it and you'll see that you're incorrect in your definition. I'm not trying to spark an off-topic discussion, but correcting an error made during the discussion which paints an incorrect picture of one of our central doctrines. I think I've done this and so again, carry on folks!

 

[Montalban]

Montalban is back from his mysterious hiatus

Read the OP - no great mystery

and it seems nothing has changed. More whining about "just-so statements" and offering myriads of one-liner dialectical Socraticisms.

Why would anyone let themselves fall into the trap of replying to you? It looks like this thread is going in the same direction that your million-page threads over authority and the scriptural canon did.

Would you care to discuss any of the issues here, or me?

 

[Montalban]

Basil wrote
Therefore my Church has felt strong affection towards him, for the sake of that brave and firm stand, and has held communion with him. I, therefore, by God’s grace, have held him to be in communion up to this time; and, if God will, I shall continue to do so. Moreover the very blessed Pope Athanasius came from Alexandria, and was most anxious that communion should be established between Meletius and himself"
Letter CCLVIII – Epiphanius the bishop

Basil wrote he was in communion with Meletius, but not with the pope of Alexandria

No evidence has been put forward of formal excommunications

None are needed.

If a Catholic stops going to church and ceases to believe, he's already 'out of communion'.

For the convoluted apologetics here to deny this would mean that everyone batpised Catholic remain so regardless of that person's actual beliefs (except if they're formally excommunicated).

 

[Erose]

Yes, I presented it. Basil talks of re-establishing communion between Alexandria and Meletius

The reasons why, which you ask, are supreflouous to the point that they weren't in communion.

This is just another case of adding "No it's not" to your rebuttals.

How do you think that Alexandria and Antioch needed to re-establish communion if they were already in communion?

I don't deny that there is historical evidence that Alexandria and Melitius were not in communion with each other, but you still haven't shown evidence that Rome and Melitius were not in communion. I see Rome in communion with Alexandria and I also see Rome in communion with Basil, but I haven't seen evidence on whether or not Rome and Melitius were in communion. That is what I am waiting for. If Melitius was no longer in communion with Rome then it should be supportable. So show the support.

 

[Erose]

Were anti-popes in communion with popes?

Between the individuals? No. But the point is that the Church didn't split into two or three Churches because there was two (and in one case three) bishops laying claim to the see of Rome. That is the point that I've have been trying to make. Even though Melitius and Paulinus were not originally in communion with each other it didn't effect the people of their flocks relationship with the rest of the Church. This is pretty much what the quote of Melitius stated, which you have denied.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

Tthis thread has been cleaned up and re-opened
Please address the post not the poster
Thanks
Mod Hat Off​