Pinned Tweet
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it…
Sections from Paul Tillich’s
“A History of Christian Thought”
Chapter 6: Roman Catholicism from Trent to the Present.
🧵—
How Rome destroyed the Augustinian position and that the Pope in judging the writings of Jansen, becomes the Judge of ALL TEXTS, not just the scriptures or the texts of sacred tradition.
But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
—Apostolic Canon 34
“My friend Pusey, come over to Rome with us… Anglicanism is false!”
“No Newman, Anglicanism is true.”
“But how? What about the fact that the Church permits the reformed heresies?”
“I do not understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand.”
Fumples retweeted
From the RCC's point of view, the 19th century rise of nationalism was disastrous for any Catholic European country afflicted.
They felt prerogatives guaranteed to them in previous eras slipping away from them in a more permanent sense.
So, what do you do?
Massive power grab. Restate the way the medieval western church (mostly) functioned 10th century onwards, but now introduce an element of doctrinal guilt into any potential disagreement with the papacy.
From the Catholic POV, this is awesome. It's "trad" because it reinforces the older hierarchical structure. (and we're going to argue it was how the Church was always destined to eventually function, seed to bloom etc) It's the starting guns to an era of resistance against modernity.
For everyone else, it was the final nail in the coffin. It was 9/11 for guys wanting to reunite European Christianity. A theological grave the Vatican has been trying to climb their way out of with every single ecumenical document produced in recent memory.
Uhh as for what this dude is going through I guess he realized he's theologically an Old Catholic? Not many of those around but he is european so maybe? *shrug*
“Bishop John Fisher, do you renounce Popery?”
“No, I die a loyal son of Ratzinger and the Ordinariate!”
“The what?”
“You’ll see…”
P1. The Orthodox Bishops are Bishops of the Church.
P2. The consent of the Church is necessary for papal infallibility to take place
P3. The Orthodox Bishops do not consent to many Roman Catholic Dogmas
P4. The Papacy has never been protected by infallibility due to P3.
“Now there are not a few who are given over to the veneration of the saints…Some for example have a great devotion to Saint Christopher… Because they wish to be preserved from death that day. There are others who are devoted to St Roch. Why? Because they believe Roch…
You pray for the things of the material world and have not the slightest idea of how to use divine things. Are you not actually praying for your own ruin? You pray for good health and yet you continue to abuse it. Is this not rather a dishonouring rather an honouring of God?”
Guy who rejects Pastor Aeternus but who also rejects Orthodoxy because the Eastern Church of the 1st Millenium affirmed Pastor Aeternus.
Replying to @monachus_iners @AugustineOTV
If you for some reason reject Pastor Aeternus but accept the basic properties of the Church taught by even the Orthodox, I recommend Erick Ybarra’s book “The Papacy”. It assumes those priors and does a very good job of showing how any conclusion other than Pastor Aeternus in untenable with the scriptural and patristic evidence.
















