Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By now there is a canon of the NT and the Gospels have been around for a long time. In fact Constantine ordered 50 written copies of the bible in codex form. Up until that point the few NTs existed in scrolls and they were hard to read. Fifty bibles in codex was HUGE and provided scholars a greater opportunity to interpret the bible.
That is simply untrue. The Diatessaron codex written in the 2nd Century in Greek and Syriac was by the 5th Century the standard gospel text throughout Christendom.
2nd Century fragments P52 and P75 are part of a codex. P353 is from a 3rd Century codex.
Paul's letters circulated in codex collection in the 2nd Century, the oldest surviving Pauline Corpus being manuscript P46 written around 200 AD. 86 of the original 104 folios are extant.
Codex P45 were part of a Greek speaking church in Egypt. This codex included Hebrews which was rejected by the Roman church until the 5th Century.
So these two codex collections of the Gospels and Paul's Corpus became one not by the Romans but by either Marcion or Valentinus in the early to mid 2nd Century. A Valentinian codex circulated around Rome at this time.
In 303 AD Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered all copies of Scripture be confiscated and destroyed. This was the first time Roman persecution of Christians involved death for noncompliance of turning over their "canon" of Holy Books. Hard hist were the churches on North Africa where many lives were lost by those unwilling to comply.
In 330 AD Constantine enlisted Eusebius to handle the 50 Bibles. While the exact text used for these Bibles is unknown and debated, along with the books included, though most scholars surmise it was the same books Eusebius lists in his writings.
In summary, there were several codex forms of the NT a century or more before Constantine's 50 Bibles. The fact Eusebius had no difficulty deciding which books to include and which to not include clearly indicates the NT canon was already decided before him.
That is simply untrue. The Diatessaron codex written in the 2nd Century in Greek and Syriac was by the 5th Century the standard gospel text throughout Christendom.
2nd Century fragments P52 and P75 are part of a codex. P353 is from a 3rd Century codex.
Paul's letters circulated in codex collection in the 2nd Century, the oldest surviving Pauline Corpus being manuscript P46 written around 200 AD. 86 of the original 104 folios are extant.
Codex P45 were part of a Greek speaking church in Egypt. This codex included Hebrews which was rejected by the Roman church until the 5th Century.
So these two codex collections of the Gospels and Paul's Corpus became one not by the Romans but by either Marcion or Valentinus in the early to mid 2nd Century. A Valentinian codex circulated around Rome at this time.
In 303 AD Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered all copies of Scripture be confiscated and destroyed. This was the first time Roman persecution of Christians involved death for noncompliance of turning over their "canon" of Holy Books. Hard hist were the churches on North Africa where many lives were lost by those unwilling to comply.
In 330 AD Constantine enlisted Eusebius to handle the 50 Bibles. While the exact text used for these Bibles is unknown and debated, along with the books included, though most scholars surmise it was the same books Eusebius lists in his writings.
In summary, there were several codex forms of the NT a century or more before Constantine's 50 Bibles. The fact Eusebius had no difficulty deciding which books to include and which to not include clearly indicates the NT canon was already decided before him.
Nice of you to debate the codex. I am certain there were others, but many bibles still existed in scrolls. And the point was that ordering 50 bibles in codex was a big deal during those days.
I agree with you in that the concept of the papacy evolved over the time.
Historically, concepts that involve ruling over others that "evolve over time" tend to be the work of corrupt elitists trying to justify grabbing up power for themselves. Can you name for me any other example where a God actually endorses individuals or groups who gradually claimed power over time? From what we know from the OT and NT, God tends to make himself pretty clear right from the beginning when it comes to endorsing the power and authority on earth. For example, the Aaronic priestly leadership in Israel was established right from the start. It did not gradually evolve over time. That is how God tends to operate.
Quote:
However, the connection to Peter is not a dream. The connection to Peter is Biblical. By now there is a canon of the NT and the Gospels have been around for a long time. In fact Constantine ordered 50 written copies of the bible in codex form. Up until that point the few NTs existed in scrolls and they were hard to read. Fifty bibles in codex was HUGE and provided scholars a greater opportunity to interpret the bible.
So they confirm that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and that Peter was hand picked by Jesus.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, you're telling me that the connection from Jesus to Peter to Rome is Biblical. Granted there are passages in the Bible that imply that Peter was head apostle. But you're still not connecting the dots from Peter to Rome. Where is this mysterious Biblical passage you mention that teaches us about the primacy of Rome?? We can have a lively debate over whether Peter was all that you say that he was, but that is a different discussion entirely. Peter's preeminnence or lack thereof has got nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome -- the Pope -- unless you can demonstrate that they are the exclusive successors to his authority.
And now we've opened a giant hole in the entire theory of Papal Supremacy: You've acknowledged that nobody knew that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter and none would know for another 350 years. The Roman Bishops didn't know. Peter didn't know. The apostle John who outlived Peter didn't have any clue that he was now under the leadership of Linus and his successors ... and Linus didn't know either. Nobody knew. God really pulled a fast one on them hiding Rome's apostolic succession and papal supremacy for 350 years like that!! Who said God doesn't have a sense of humor?? What a prankster!
To top it off, Innocent I had only just begun the process of papal supremacy gaining widespread agreement. And it wasn't until the Great Schism removed the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the other three great Patriarchs from the equation entirely that the that the claim of papal supremacy was universally accepted ... at least in the West. But hey, it only took 350 years for the popes to realize that they we actually popes and 650 years of arguing before Papal Supremacy was finally accepted. What's 1000 years among friends after all?
Quote:
I suspect that at some point Peter was retroactively named the first Pope and the Papacy finally had biblical roots. Before, you complain do not forget that it took other Christians 1500 years to arrive at the concept of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. So I would think that waiting 300-400 years to arrive at the concept of the Papacy and Peter as the first Pope was not a stretch. You may not agree with the interpretation, but it is what it is.
Since I reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as pious nonsense anyways, why bring it up? Since it actually took 1000 years and ripping the Church in half in order to finalize Papal Supremacy, the most obvious conclusion is that Papal Supremacy was just an excuse for power hungry theocratic leaders to grab absolute power. It remains to be demonstrated that the Pope is actually the rightful heir to Peter in the first place. If Peter even has an heir, the Bishop of Antioch would be a for more likely candidate.
Quote:
Now you sound like the other posters who make a point about early Christianity while living in the 1500s.
Peter and Paul were considered great Christian leaders and during those days Christians used to venerate martyrs. They saw these men as being special in the eyes of God and they even venerated their bones.
See above. You have neglected something very important in the very early history of Christianity. The bones and relics of Christian martyrs were venerated. Now say "it is not in the bible". Wrong again! The early Christians did not have bibles!!!! The worked from Oral Tradition.
For my part, I consider the veneration of bones and body parts of dead men of God to be a whole lot of pious nonsense. It seems to be more of a carryover from the many pagan religions that Christianity absorbed than anything else.
But in the event that I'm wrong, I have already provided an example where authority could have passed through another such holy relic. Remember Khan Krum of the Bulgars? Just like Rome, he killed an important Christian figure. In this case, it was the Eastern Roman Emperor Nikephoros -- the single most powerful figure in all Christianity at the time. He honors that Christian leader by turning his skull into a gold-covered work of art - a beautiful golden cup. It is Krum's most valued possession thereafter. Krum further honors Nikephoros by drinking from this holy relic regularly.
So if I'm wrong and sacred relics are legit, then clearly Krum should have succeeded Nikephoros as Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Seems reasonable enough to me. He's got the sacred skull. He possesses it, decorates it and honors it. So clearly the authority that was once held by the man whose skull it was should pass directly to Krum, just as the authority of Peter passed to Rome.
You never responded to that line of thought though ....
Quote:
We cannot know if Constantine was sincere or not, but he built churches, provided land, and gave cash to the church and this facilitated the spread of Christianity to the world.
And his actions made Constantinople (not Rome) the preeminent greatest city in all Christendom. If the Muslims hadn't shown up, Constantinople would probably remain the greatest Christian city in the world to this day. If we follow Constantine's lead, Constantinople should be the unquestioned head of all Christianity.
Rome becomes the great Christian city by attrition when all of the other original great Christian cities are overrun. Rome was the last city left standing. Not enough to validate the Pope's claim to be "Vicar of Christ and Heir of St Peter."
Quote:
Oh please, they were no more cunning or less cunning that Martin Luther. They had a belief system and they promoted their view.
That didn't answer my question though. Why do you assume that there was ever any such thing as a "Holy See" other than "because the Pope said so"? If there is such a thing as a "Holy See", why Rome?
Historically, concepts that involve ruling over others that "evolve over time" tend to be the work of corrupt elitists trying to justify grabbing up power for themselves. Can you name for me any other example where a God actually endorses individuals or groups who gradually claimed power over time? From what we know from the OT and NT, God tends to make himself pretty clear right from the beginning when it comes to endorsing the power and authority on earth. For example, the Aaronic priestly leadership in Israel was established right from the start. It did not gradually evolve over time. That is how God tends to operate.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, you're telling me that the connection from Jesus to Peter to Rome is Biblical. Granted there are passages in the Bible that imply that Peter was head apostle. But you're still not connecting the dots from Peter to Rome. Where is this mysterious Biblical passage you mention that teaches us about the primacy of Rome?? We can have a lively debate over whether Peter was all that you say that he was, but that is a different discussion entirely. Peter's preeminnence or lack thereof has got nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome -- the Pope -- unless you can demonstrate that they are the exclusive successors to his authority.
And now we've opened a giant hole in the entire theory of Papal Supremacy: You've acknowledged that nobody knew that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter and none would know for another 350 years. The Roman Bishops didn't know. Peter didn't know. The apostle John who outlived Peter didn't have any clue that he was now under the leadership of Linus and his successors ... and Linus didn't know either. Nobody knew. God really pulled a fast one on them hiding Rome's apostolic succession and papal supremacy for 350 years like that!! Who said God doesn't have a sense of humor?? What a prankster!
To top it off, Innocent I had only just begun the process of papal supremacy gaining widespread agreement. And it wasn't until the Great Schism removed the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the other three great Patriarchs from the equation entirely that the that the claim of papal supremacy was universally accepted ... at least in the West. But hey, it only took 350 years for the popes to realize that they we actually popes and 650 years of arguing before Papal Supremacy was finally accepted. What's 1000 years among friends after all?
Since I reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as pious nonsense anyways, why bring it up? Since it actually took 1000 years and ripping the Church in half in order to finalize Papal Supremacy, the most obvious conclusion is that Papal Supremacy was just an excuse for power hungry theocratic leaders to grab absolute power. It remains to be demonstrated that the Pope is actually the rightful heir to Peter in the first place. If Peter even has an heir, the Bishop of Antioch would be a for more likely candidate.
For my part, I consider the veneration of bones and body parts of dead men of God to be a whole lot of pious nonsense. It seems to be more of a carryover from the many pagan religions that Christianity absorbed than anything else.
But in the event that I'm wrong, I have already provided an example where authority could have passed through another such holy relic. Remember Khan Krum of the Bulgars? Just like Rome, he killed an important Christian figure. In this case, it was the Eastern Roman Emperor Nikephoros -- the single most powerful figure in all Christianity at the time. He honors that Christian leader by turning his skull into a gold-covered work of art - a beautiful golden cup. It is Krum's most valued possession thereafter. Krum further honors Nikephoros by drinking from this holy relic regularly.
So if I'm wrong and sacred relics are legit, then clearly Krum should have succeeded Nikephoros as Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Seems reasonable enough to me. He's got the sacred skull. He possesses it, decorates it and honors it. So clearly the authority that was once held by the man whose skull it was should pass directly to Krum, just as the authority of Peter passed to Rome.
You never responded to that line of thought though ....
And his actions made Constantinople (not Rome) the preeminent greatest city in all Christendom. If the Muslims hadn't shown up, Constantinople would probably remain the greatest Christian city in the world to this day. If we follow Constantine's lead, Constantinople should be the unquestioned head of all Christianity.
Rome becomes the great Christian city by attrition when all of the other original great Christian cities are overrun. Rome was the last city left standing. Not enough to validate the Pope's claim to be "Vicar of Christ and Heir of St Peter."
That didn't answer my question though. Why do you assume that there was ever any such thing as a "Holy See" other than "because the Pope said so"? If there is such a thing as a "Holy See", why Rome?
Outstanding post, GOT! And you are absolutely correct . . . it was the Muslims who by overrunning Constantinople set the wheels in motion (by attrition as you said) for Rome to claim ascendancy. If they had not been stopped a Tours, France . . . who knows what the world would be like today.
Historically, concepts that involve ruling over others that "evolve over time" tend to be the work of corrupt elitists trying to justify grabbing up power for themselves. Can you name for me any other example where a God actually endorses individuals or groups who gradually claimed power over time? From what we know from the OT and NT, God tends to make himself pretty clear right from the beginning when it comes to endorsing the power and authority on earth. For example, the Aaronic priestly leadership in Israel was established right from the start. It did not gradually evolve over time. That is how God tends to operate.
Oh please! Why do you think Henry the VIII broke off from Rome? For religious reasons? No! He wanted another wife and named himself the Head of the Church of England? And lets not forget the modern Mega Churches of this era.
Quote:
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, you're telling me that the connection from Jesus to Peter to Rome is Biblical. Granted there are passages in the Bible that imply that Peter was head apostle. But you're still not connecting the dots from Peter to Rome. Where is this mysterious Biblical passage you mention that teaches us about the primacy of Rome??
Nice straw man! I said At Nauseam that the Rome angle is moot. The Holy See could have been New York City. But, Protestant apologist always play the Rome card even thought the supremacy of Peter and being singled out in Matthew 16:18-19 has nothing to do with Rome.
Quote:
We can have a lively debate over whether Peter was all that you say that he was, but that is a different discussion entirely. Peter's preeminnence or lack thereof has got nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome
Exactly!!!! You finally got it. Rome was not chosen for biblical reasons. Rome was just convenient for historical reasons.
Quote:
And now we've opened a giant hole in the entire theory of Papal Supremacy: You've acknowledged that nobody knew that the Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter and none would know for another 350 years. The Roman Bishops didn't know. Peter didn't know. The apostle John who outlived Peter didn't have any clue that he was now under the leadership of Linus and his successors ... and Linus didn't know either. Nobody knew. God really pulled a fast one on them hiding Rome's apostolic succession and papal supremacy for 350 years like that!! Who said God doesn't have a sense of humor?? What a prankster!
You are making the same error once again. You are judging Christianity in its infancy with a 2014 mindset. You need to look at history from its own perspective. Let me ask you this: Did you know you were a Protestant apologist when you were six months old?
Quote:
To top it off, Innocent I had only just begun the process of papal supremacy gaining widespread agreement. And it wasn't until the Great Schism removed the Eastern Roman Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the other three great Patriarchs from the equation entirely that the that the claim of papal supremacy was universally accepted ... at least in the West. But hey, it only took 350 years for the popes to realize that they we actually popes and 650 years of arguing before Papal Supremacy was finally accepted. What's 1000 years among friends after all?
Once again you make the same error. You judge ancient history from our modern times. It is not big deal that it took Christians 350 years to figure a few things out. And as I said it took the Protestants 1500 years to figure other things out. And Einstein didn't think the universe was expanding even though his own work was in agreement with an expanding universe. Your point about Peter not being aware he was pope is meaningless.
Quote:
Since I reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide as pious nonsense anyways, why bring it up? Since it actually took 1000 years and ripping the Church in half in order to finalize Papal Supremacy, the most obvious conclusion is that Papal Supremacy was just an excuse for power hungry theocratic leaders to grab absolute power. It remains to be demonstrated that the Pope is actually the rightful heir to Peter in the first place. If Peter even has an heir, the Bishop of Antioch would be a for more likely candidate.
I simply said it took 1500 years for Sola Scriptura to evolve. I mentioned that because you thought 350 years was too much time to figure out religion.
I have accepted at nauseam that many Popes were corrupt. That changes nothing. Should we abolish the presidency of the US because some presidents were corrupt? Once again you make a rookie mistake that is very atypical for you. That Popes were corrupt does not change anything.
Quote:
For my part, I consider the veneration of bones and body parts of dead men of God to be a whole lot of pious nonsense. It seems to be more of a carryover from the many pagan religions that Christianity absorbed than anything else.
You sound like a Sola Scriptura person even though you deny it. I suggest you study the history of Christianity and the veneration of Christian martyrs.
Quote:
So if I'm wrong and sacred relics are legit, then clearly Krum should have succeeded Nikephoros as Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Seems reasonable enough to me. He's got the sacred skull. He possesses it, decorates it and honors it. So clearly the authority that was once held by the man whose skull it was should pass directly to Krum, just as the authority of Peter passed to Rome.
You never responded to that line of thought though ....
You misunderstand the point of relics. I mentioned that to make you aware that Christians of that era were very aware of the tomb of Peter and they gave it a lot of significance. In any event I am glad you learned soemthing new tonight.
Quote:
And his actions made Constantinople (not Rome) the preeminent greatest city in all Christendom. If the Muslims hadn't shown up, Constantinople would probably remain the greatest Christian city in the world to this day. If we follow Constantine's lead, Constantinople should be the unquestioned head of all Christianity.
Rome becomes the great Christian city by attrition when all of the other original great Christian cities are overrun. Rome was the last city left standing. Not enough to validate the Pope's claim to be "Vicar of Christ and Heir of St Peter."
There you go again. Rome is a moot point!
Quote:
That didn't answer my question though. Why do you assume that there was ever any such thing as a "Holy See" other than "because the Pope said so"? If there is such a thing as a "Holy See", why Rome?
I have accepted at nauseam that many Popes were corrupt. That changes nothing. Should we abolish the presidency of the US because some presidents were corrupt? Once again you make a rookie mistake that is very atypical for you. That Popes were corrupt does not change anything.
::Sigh:: You are an intelligent man, Julian . . . but your apologetic and defense of that corrupt and evil hierarchy in Rome is undeserved. How in all good conscience can you maintain that there is some "apostolic succession" approved of by God no less . . . that could foster the series of corrupt and evil Popes that has been the RCC's heritage? The very idea of hierarchy itself is wrong and virtually everything that has proceeded from it has tainted Christ's Gospel of love.
Oh please! Why do you think Henry the VIII broke off from Rome? For religious reasons? No! He wanted another wife and named himself the Head of the Church of England? And lets not forget the modern Mega Churches of this era.
Interesting tactic, justifying the power grab by the Popes by pointing to others who unjustifiably grabbed power, money and glory they hadn't the right to. What do you hope to accomplish by it when I have absolutely no intention of defending Henry VIII or Mega-church money hungry types.
So are you telling me that the Popes had no right to grab up power for themselves just like Henry VIII didn't have the right?
Quote:
Nice straw man! I said At Nauseam that the Rome angle is moot. The Holy See could have been New York City. But, Protestant apologist always play the Rome card even thought the supremacy of Peter and being singled out in Matthew 16:18-19 has nothing to do with Rome.
Honestly, I think the whole business of having a specific "holy zip code" is a load of crap. But since you keep saying that location is irrelevant, why doesn't the RCC acknowledge Constantinople's primacy during the time when they were unquestionably the greatest and most important Christian city in the world? Why are you passing over the fact that the Roman bishops spent 650 years trying unsuccessfully to verbally beat the other four "great Patriarchs" into submission to Rome because the Pope really and truly believed that his location absolutely did matter.
Quote:
Exactly!!!! You finally got it. Rome was not chosen for biblical reasons. Rome was just convenient for historical reasons.
It would be more accurate to say that the Pope's successful power grab was very convenient for the Pope's own personal reasons.
Quote:
You are making the same error once again. You are judging Christianity in its infancy with a 2014 mindset. You need to look at history from its own perspective. Let me ask you this: Did you know you were a Protestant apologist when you were six months old?
Once again you make the same error. You judge ancient history from our modern times. It is not big deal that it took Christians 350 years to figure a few things out. And as I said it took the Protestants 1500 years to figure other things out. And Einstein didn't think the universe was expanding even though his own work was in agreement with an expanding universe. Your point about Peter not being aware he was pope is meaningless.
I simply said it took 1500 years for Sola Scriptura to evolve. I mentioned that because you thought 350 years was too much time to figure out religion.
I have accepted at nauseam that many Popes were corrupt. That changes nothing. Should we abolish the presidency of the US because some presidents were corrupt? Once again you make a rookie mistake that is very atypical for you. That Popes were corrupt does not change anything.
Quote:
You sound like a Sola Scriptura person even though you deny it.
I reject Sola Scriptura for complete different reasons than you do. I reject it because I believe that God has not forfeited the right to speak to humankind for himself. If God wants to send us apostles and prophets tomorrow, he can do it and we haven't the right to say he can't. If God needs to appear to me or you or anyone else tomorrow, he will do so. We have no right to tell him he can't. And if God speaks to me and I write it down word for word, that is just as much scripture as the Old and New Testaments.
You reject Sola Scriptura because it effectively tosses "sacred oral tradition" in the garbage. On that matter, we disagree. I believe that the Jewish scribes came up with sacred oral tradition that was not of God and I believe that the Catholic Church has just repeated the same mistake: Holding up the traditions of men and calling it the absolute and unimpeachable will of God ... without ever actually giving God a say in the matter.
As to relics, I think I'm pretty accurate actually. If the possession of the corpse of Peter absolves Rome from condemnation for killing St Peter in the first place, then the same must surely apply to Krum. If possession of the most significant of all sacred body parts -- the skull -- magically transfers the power and authority of Peter to the See of Rome, then the same should apply to Krum. But perhaps you are of the "relics are only relics if the RCC says they are" mindset. I'd call that moving the goal posts around whenever it suits you.
Ultimately, you've got a very tough concept to sell here. Claiming that the Bishop of Rome just woke up in 401 AD and realized, "Wow, I think I'm supposed to be the ruler of the world! I think God has given me this right! I think this was handed down to me through St Peter! Attention everybody!! I'm in charge now!! You have to listen to me and do everything I say from now on!!" Fine and good if you're already in the RCC, but that ain't gonna fly with anyone who is non-Catholic. I think it's pretty obvious why, don't you?
And I keep returning to Rome because you've yet to tell me the name of one Pope (other than Peter) who was not Bishop of Rome. If the rulership of the Church had moved around from place to place over time that would be one thing. If it were possible for the papacy to no longer be tied to the office of Bishop of Rome then you'd have a point. But the papacy has always been and will always be tied to the office of Bishop of Rome. That will never change. That is why geography matters a great deal in this discussion.
The single greatest appeal I can see for accepting the RCC is for the sake of returning to a unified Body of Christ instead of 43,000 different denominations squabbling over just about everything imaginable. Trouble is that for me personally, there is just way too much insanity in the RCC's history. I cannot wrap my mind around the Pope being the one and only man on earth chosen to be the spiritual leader of all of humanity. Unfortunately, as an avid student of history, I just know too much about the Popes to buy it. If the Jewish leaders can lose their authority via rebellion against God, corruption and general wickedness, then the Popes lost their own authority a very long time ago -- if they ever had it to begin with. They have since loaded themselves up with man-made doctrines and traditions that they seem to have pulled out of thin air. The desperate need for reconciliation and unity might be enough for many to look past all of that and choose to join with the RCC, but it's just not enough for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
That didn't answer my question though. Why do you assume that there was ever any such thing as a "Holy See" other than "because the Pope said so"? If there is such a thing as a "Holy See", why Rome?
Quote:
You answer your own question above.
Actually I didn't answer my question at all and neither did you. I do not believe that there is such thing as a "Holy See" -- a geographical location that grants authority from God. I have been willing to discuss it from a "if such a thing were possible" point of view, but I don't buy into the concept for one second. In each case, I'm just saying, "If that were even possible, why Rome? Why not Antioch? Why not Alexandria? Why not Jerusalem or Constantinople? Why not Madrid Spain? Why not Sao Paulo Brazil?" I'm trying to understand why the RCC thinks that Rome is the exclusive most-sacred real estate on earth.
::Sigh:: You are an intelligent man, Julian . . . but your apologetic and defense of that corrupt and evil hierarchy in Rome is undeserved. How in all good conscience can you maintain that there is some "apostolic succession" approved of by God no less . . . that could foster the series of corrupt and evil Popes that has been the RCC's heritage? The very idea of hierarchy itself is wrong and virtually everything that has proceeded from it has tainted Christ's Gospel of love.
So if I understand you, you think the RCC is evil and corrupt?
Yes, we have had evil and corrupt Popes in history but the church is still standing today, 2,000 years later. How many other institutions can say that for themselves? That is the proof the RCC has been protected by the Holy Spirit as Christ said it would.
::Sigh:: You are an intelligent man, Julian . . . but your apologetic and defense of that corrupt and evil hierarchy in Rome is undeserved. How in all good conscience can you maintain that there is some "apostolic succession" approved of by God no less . . . that could foster the series of corrupt and evil Popes that has been the RCC's heritage? The very idea of hierarchy itself is wrong and virtually everything that has proceeded from it has tainted Christ's Gospel of love.
You also misunderstand my point. I have always admitted many Popes were highly corrupt, particularly during the era of the Papal States and its standing army. I have also said at nauseam that ALL religion is imperfect, including the Bible.
Where you and the others make an error is judging an ancient era with a 2014 mindset.
My defense of the papacy is simply based on the fact that I am Catholic and I understand WHY it developed the way it did. It is simply providing an explanation for the way history developed. But, most importantly, I am defending the virulent anti-catholic posture of most in the forum. And in doing this I detect the enormous ignorance about Catholicism.
Whatever the Bible says is probably mythological and written with an agenda by the author. But, if we must debate what is written in the bible then it is acceptable to defend Matthew 16:18-19 and the primacy of Peter. Anything after that is really moot and a feeble attempt to put the CC down.
If I was a non-Catholic the best way to attack the papacy would be to assert that what is written in the Bible is mythological, but they CANNOT do this for obvious reasons. So they come up with the Rome excuse or the evil Popes. However, that does not negate the papacy because it could have been any other city.
Any ancient civilization will show barbaric tendencies and the catholic Church is no exception. What is really odd is to see folks in 2014 with the same barbaric mindset.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you are absolutely correct . . . it was the Muslims who by overrunning Constantinople set the wheels in motion (by attrition as you said) for Rome to claim ascendancy. If they had not been stopped a Tours, France . . . who knows what the world would be like today.
