Something special going on?

No

Just saying Romans are heretics

The basics

high five

@Byzas but Spanish adds -s for plural as well

But it doesn't just add S

-os, -as, -es

I read somewhere something about Spanish and Italian using plural systems for different Latin cases

And Spanish never took over English, if we got it from something romance it was french

Italian goes o->i a->e

But the french don't pronounce the S on the end of plurals

Les voyages sounds like lay voyage

Yeah but I'm suspecting the -s suffix plurals may have come from Normans

Maybe, but i don't see how it would have trickled into English considering they don't pronounce it and the lower class would probably have been illiterate

But again I have to look into that before I say for certain because I don't know much about Anglo Saxon grammar, especially regarding plurals

Well much of the upper level vocabulary is of Latin origin

Yup

So makes sense half our worlds would use a Latin derived plural system

Thanks to the rape of English by the Normans

For basic words every peasant knows, such as man, mouse, woman, we use an umlaut stem changing plural

And the rape of orthodoxy in England <:aaa:509492295599652864>

But for the Germanic word king we use kings

REEEE

cyning

Se Westseaxnas cyning, Æþelræd se unræd

Wessex/Westseaxna (west saxons)

Northumbria/Norþan Hymbra

Hey there is an extra space in my name

The Ireland Church was staying in Orthodoxy until the British King received the autorisation of the Pope to invade the island in order to reform that Church.

All of that before becoming Anglican.

British = Perfect guys

@Constantin le Lamantin The quote I have given is from St Augustine. And the 2nd ecumenical council clearly makes a distinction between heresies that pretty much amount to being heathens that are not christians, and those which don't. That is why, when they mentiion the baptism of one of these heresies, it is said how they have altered the baptism so that it reflects the non-trinitarian heresy. Of other heresies it is showed how they are not baptized. So yes, the belief that baptism is invalid if performed by heretics, is a heresy. A baptism is valid when the formula is correct.

@Mozalbete ⳩ So the Arians were using a correct formula ?

I think that, by arians, they still include people who accepted the trinity, and other more extreme forms of arianism as being a heathen. Which is why it is not said that arians would be rebaptized

So you are mading that of your personal interpretation. The text is saying arians. Are arians trinitarian ? @Mozalbete ⳩

The text is saying that arians and others are not rebaptized. That is not my personal interpretation.

So arians use the correct formula ?

That is for you to decide. But your position is that any baptism in heresy is not valid. You used as evidence the 2nd ec. council. But that very council states examples where tehre is no re-baptism

No.

You should have read what I said later.