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.
Of course when extremely fallible human beings can declare themselves infallible, especially by consensus it MUST be true, right?
I know you wish you could write it off so easily.
Unfortunately, Jesus who IS God, established the infallibility of the Church in the pages of the New Testament. The infallibility of the pope took longer to discern and define, but an infallible Church has done so.
John Henry Newman, arguably one of the most brilliant minds of the 19th century spoke of that process this way:
Bl. Cardinal Newman on the Development of Papal Infallibility
The following excerpt is taken from John Henry Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine written just prior to his conversion to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism. In this passage, Newman considers the development of the modern papacy and explains why an explicit understanding of Papal Supremacy by the early Church Fathers is not necessary and the lack thereof not fatal to the Catholic claims defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope's supremacy.
As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.
. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .
. . . St. Peter's prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were "of one heart and soul," it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .
When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .
Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him: so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .
On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.
It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-Nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .
Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.
(Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.)
Of course when extremely fallible human beings can declare themselves infallible, especially by consensus it MUST be true, right???
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRCarson
I know you wish you could write it off so easily.
Unfortunately, Jesus who IS God, established the infallibility of the Church in the pages of the New Testament.
Nonsense.
Quote:
The infallibility of the pope took longer to discern and define, but an infallible Church has done so.
More nonsense. It is all about power and control and has always been so. Your citation even makes that perfectly clear. It is all the creation of FALLIBLE human beings in developing their "precepts and doctrines of men" . . . that we are told NOT to trust. I realize that your trust in the RCC is firm and well-established and your model of obedience to its authority cannot be breached. I admire your zeal . . . but I bet God would prefer that you focused it on Christ's instructions to His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent we you don't. The Dogma is a distraction and a stumbling block to love and knowing God and Jesus . . . NOT an aid.
Unfortunately, Jesus who IS God, established the infallibility of the Church in the pages of the New Testament. The infallibility of the pope took longer to discern and define, but an infallible Church has done so.
John Henry Newman, arguably one of the most brilliant minds of the 19th century spoke of that process this way:
Bl. Cardinal Newman on the Development of Papal Infallibility
The following excerpt is taken from John Henry Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine written just prior to his conversion to the Catholic Church from Anglicanism. In this passage, Newman considers the development of the modern papacy and explains why an explicit understanding of Papal Supremacy by the early Church Fathers is not necessary and the lack thereof not fatal to the Catholic claims defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope's supremacy.
As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.
. . . While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope . . .
. . . St. Peter's prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were "of one heart and soul," it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .
When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .
Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him: so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .
On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.
It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-Nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .
Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.
(Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.)
Dear Carson,
As per your "Jesus who Is God" statement, that is also a tradition of man, backed by the power of the Roman state, per the decree of Constantine, in 331 AD. Per the misinterpreted founding statement of the church, which is supposedly founded on the "petra" of Simon bar Jonas, Petros said that Yeshua was the "Christ, the son of the Living God". (Mt 16:16)
Work and life in general is getting very busy, so I will have to forego offering the depth of response that your post deserves. I will make a few brief points and will need to defer further response for the time being.
Seems like a period of time when the supposed designated leader of the Church should have been stepping up and leading, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRCarson
What suggests that Linus wasn't leading? The lack of extant writings? Sounds like an argument from silence to me.
What suggests that Linus wasn't leading? Because none of his contemporaries had anything to say about him leading anything but the Church at Rome that he was assigned to. John was taking a leading role over the entire Church. There is abundant Biblical and non-Bilbical evidence of John leading the whole Church. So if Linus was leading, why didn't anyone ever mention it or even hint at the fact?
The burden of proof is on the RCC. The historical record shows 300 years of Bishops of Rome keeping to themselves and never sticking their nose in any other bishop's business unasked for. It is only after the Roman Empire has firmly established Christianity as the new state religion and promoted the Bishop of Rome to "first among equals" by imperial decree that we even begin to see the Bishop of Rome start acting like they're anything more than any other bishop. And naturally, the Emperor chose the pecking order. It was the Emperor that made Rome top dog by imperial decree. Shortly thereafter, it was imperial decree that promoted the Bishop of Jerusalem to greater standing. It was the Emperor's decree that promotes the Bishop of Constantinople to higher standing than Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, making them virtually equal in standing with the Bishop of Rome. Notice how absolutely nobody dared to object to the Empire choosing the pecking order. By rights, Antioch would be "first among equals" if any bishop merits the title. If not first, then at least second. Yet Antioch sat back and let themselves be demoted. Why? Apparently, because the emperor said so and because the emperor gave Antioch more power than they had ever had before. Just like Rome, Antioch was was just another bishop ranking no higher or lower than any other. When somebody gives you new and great power, most people tend not to argue against it.
This is a case of "where there is smoke there is fire." Records and writings can be forged and changed, but it's a lot harder to fake actions that never happened without historians seeing it for what it is. For 300 years, nobody is looking to Rome to lead. For 300 years Rome is not trying to lead. Lack of evidence of Popes actually behaving like Popes is the best evidence that the title and position was a complete fabrication. The Bishop of Rome becomes emboldened starting with Constantine. Rome continues to claim more and more power and Christendom accepts it because of where it came from: The Emperor of Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
I have every confidence that Clement was one of the most capable religious leaders of his time. It doesn't surprise me that Corinth asked him for advice. But I was asking for examples where the Bishop of Rome led the entire Church. When did the Bishop of Rome first begin leading and also being followed? Who was the first Pope who actually acted like the supreme leader of all Christianity? Clement for all his gifts most certainly did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRCarson
Since Corinth appealed to Rome, the example of Clement exercising his pastoral responsibility outside of his own local diocese is given.
The inadequacy of this example is absolutely astounding. A bishop with troubles seeks the advice of one of the most gifted bishops and administrators alive at the time. Clement gives his advice and help. You're trying to tell me that 1 + 1 = 1000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Somebody is trying to sell me the X person is "Vicar of Christ" and supreme leader of Christianity on earth. It would seem pretty silly to accept his claim without even bothering to establish the validity of such a bold claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRCarson
Fair enough. That's why evidence was presented.
The evidence you present is weak at best. The Bible forgets to mention Rome's primacy. The earliest Church Fathers don't mention it. You have a lot of round about insinuations but no concrete evidence. It really says something when Peter "departing to another place" must automagically mean Rome. Rome would be one of the least logical destinations for Peter to run to. He would likely head to somewhere closer that didn't involve the cost of passage by ship and to go such a great distance. I have to cut this short for now.
I'm glad that the RCC has evolved into a vastly less tyranical and more Christlike religious organization. I think it's a great religion and that it has learned the hard lessons of it's many mistakes. But Rome's exclusive claim to Peter holds about as much water as the pagan-era Roman Emperors' claim to be living gods. Julius Caesar was an opportunist who snatched power for himself when presented with the opportunity. Later emperors felt they needed divine sanction to excuse the power grab. The Bishop of Rome is no different.
What suggests that Linus wasn't leading? Because none of his contemporaries had anything to say about him leading anything but the Church at Rome that he was assigned to. John was taking a leading role over the entire Church. There is abundant Biblical and non-Bilbical evidence of John leading the whole Church. So if Linus was leading, why didn't anyone ever mention it or even hint at the fact?
The burden of proof is on the RCC. The historical record shows 300 years of Bishops of Rome keeping to themselves and never sticking their nose in any other bishop's business unasked for. It is only after the Roman Empire has firmly established Christianity as the new state religion and promoted the Bishop of Rome to "first among equals" by imperial decree that we even begin to see the Bishop of Rome start acting like they're anything more than any other bishop. And naturally, the Emperor chose the pecking order. It was the Emperor that made Rome top dog by imperial decree. Shortly thereafter, it was imperial decree that promoted the Bishop of Jerusalem to greater standing. It was the Emperor's decree that promotes the Bishop of Constantinople to higher standing than Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, making them virtually equal in standing with the Bishop of Rome. Notice how absolutely nobody dared to object to the Empire choosing the pecking order. By rights, Antioch would be "first among equals" if any bishop merits the title. If not first, then at least second. Yet Antioch sat back and let themselves be demoted. Why? Apparently, because the emperor said so and because the emperor gave Antioch more power than they had ever had before. Just like Rome, Antioch was was just another bishop ranking no higher or lower than any other. When somebody gives you new and great power, most people tend not to argue against it.
This is a case of "where there is smoke there is fire." Records and writings can be forged and changed, but it's a lot harder to fake actions that never happened without historians seeing it for what it is. For 300 years, nobody is looking to Rome to lead. For 300 years Rome is not trying to lead. Lack of evidence of Popes actually behaving like Popes is the best evidence that the title and position was a complete fabrication. The Bishop of Rome becomes emboldened starting with Constantine. Rome continues to claim more and more power and Christendom accepts it because of where it came from: The Emperor of Rome.
The inadequacy of this example is absolutely astounding. A bishop with troubles seeks the advice of one of the most gifted bishops and administrators alive at the time. Clement gives his advice and help. You're trying to tell me that 1 + 1 = 1000.
The evidence you present is weak at best. The Bible forgets to mention Rome's primacy. The earliest Church Fathers don't mention it. You have a lot of round about insinuations but no concrete evidence. It really says something when Peter "departing to another place" must automagically mean Rome. Rome would be one of the least logical destinations for Peter to run to. He would likely head to somewhere closer that didn't involve the cost of passage by ship and to go such a great distance. I have to cut this short for now.
I'm glad that the RCC has evolved into a vastly less tyranical and more Christlike religious organization. I think it's a great religion and that it has learned the hard lessons of it's many mistakes. But Rome's exclusive claim to Peter holds about as much water as the pagan-era Roman Emperors' claim to be living gods. Julius Caesar was an opportunist who snatched power for himself when presented with the opportunity. Later emperors felt they needed divine sanction to excuse the power grab. The Bishop of Rome is no different.
More later.
You didn't read what I posted----Pope Fiction did you? Many Popes wrote letters, etc proving they had the final authority on things.
Pope Victor I (reigned 189-199) worked to settle a dispute among the bishops of the East and West over when to celebrate Easter - known as the Quartodeciman controversy. The other bishops recognized his unique authority when they followed his directive to convene local and regional synods to deliberate on the issue. Most of the bishops decided to adopt his proposal that the whole Church celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after Passover. Those who didn't, he threatened with excommunication. The fact that no bishop in the world -- not a single one -- disputed his authority as bishop of Rome to carry out such an excommunication is a powerful piece of evidence that the early Church recognized the unique authority of the bishop of Rome.
Shortly before his death in A.D. 200, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote to Pope Victor asking him to relent and allow the Eastern bishops to maintain their celebration of Easter according to the Hebrew lunar calendar, evidence that he recognized the pope's authority to threaten excommunication. Pope Victor did not in fact relent, but it's important to note that St. Irenaeus, like most of the bishops, submitted to the pope's ruling. After all, it was Irenaeus who wrote of the Church at Rome: "For with this church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree; that is, all the faithful in the whole world, for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved for the benefit of the faithful everywhere" (Against Heresies 3:3).
Around the year 220, Pope Callistus wrote, "Callistus, archbishop of the Church Catholic in the city of Rome, to Benedictus, our brother and bishop, greetings in the Lord. By the love of the brotherhood we are bound, and by our apostolic rule we are constrained, to give answer to the inquiries of the brethren, according to what the Lord has given us, and to furnish them with the authority of the seal of the apostles" (First Epistle 1). Clearly he was well aware of his special role and authority in settling problems in the Church, even in other dioceses.
Later, the same pope wrote a letter to all the bishops of Gaul, saying, "Callistus to our most dearly beloved brethren, all the bishops settled throughout Gaul ... We beg you not to permit anything to be done in those parts contrary to the apostolic statutes; but, supported by our authority, you should stop what is injurious, and prohibit what is unlawful…. Observe this law, which has been laid down by the apostles and fathers, and our predecessors, and has been ratified by us ... We have replied to your interrogations shortly, because your letter found us burdened overmuch, and preoccupied with other judgments" (Second Epistle, To All the Bishops of Gaul 2, 6).
In the year 382, Pope Damasus wrote about his authority as bishop of Rome, anchoring it to the fact that he was the successor of St. Peter, He said the Church at Rome "has been placed at the forefront, not by the conciliar decision of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelistic voice of our Lord and Savior Who says, 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven' . . . The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish" (Decree of Pope Damasus 2-3).
In A.D, 404, St. John Chrysostom wrote to Pope Innocent, "I beseech your Charity to rouse yourself and have compassion, and do everything so as to put a stop to the mischief at this point" (First Epistle to Pope Innocent 1). Note that Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, a powerful diocese, recognized the need to appeal to the bishop of Rome to resolve a controversy.
Many other examples of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the early Church could be added. Even from the earliest years, the bishop of Rome had - and everyone recognized that he had - a special authority in the Church. Those who say the papacy is a "medieval Roman invention," are either ignorant of history or dishonest.
Nonsense. More nonsense. It is all about power and control and has always been so. Your citation even makes that perfectly clear. It is all the creation of FALLIBLE human beings in developing their "precepts and doctrines of men" . . . that we are told NOT to trust. I realize that your trust in the RCC is firm and well-established and your model of obedience to its authority cannot be breached. I admire your zeal . . . but I bet God would prefer that you focused it on Christ's instructions to His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent we you don't. The Dogma is a distraction and a stumbling block to love and knowing God and Jesus . . . NOT an aid.
Pope Victor I (reigned 189-199) Shortly before his death in A.D. 200, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote Around the year 220, Pope Callistus wrote,
As for the business of Victor and Quartodecimanism, this is most definitely not a good example. Victor was being a hothead and the opposing side essentially rebukes him and puts him in his place.
"On receiving the negative response of Polycrates, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance from the common unity, but reversed his decision after bishops that included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded, recommending that Victor follow the more peaceful attitude of his predecessors. "Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom." "
Whether the Asian churches would have recognized Victor's right to excommunicate them enmasse is not at all certain. If they believed it was valid, it really proves nothing but their own gullibility. What is clear is that everyone thought that Victor was acting like an idiot. They had no intention of submitting to Victor's demands. Victor was sharply rebuked for his behavior. They gradually talked him down from his little tirade.
Still, Victor's little temper tantrum was solid foreshadowing of the future East-West schism, when yet another Pope has a temper tantrum and attempts to do the same mass excommunication thing. The Pope's power of excommunication enmasse was certainly not recognized as valid, but was contemptuously returned in kind by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The truly laughable thing is that the RCC wants us to accept these and many other such men as "Vicar of Christ" and the one and only voice of God on earth.
It is a fairly well established fact of Christian history that the earliest bishops ordained a lot of bishops in cities where there were none. This effectively made the new bishop beholden to the city whose bishop ordained them to a certain degree. The Armenian Christians considered the Bishop of Antioch to be their ultimate head with final say in cases where there was dispute. The Syrian Orthodox Church still recognizes the primacy of Antioch. All of Egypt and Ethiopia recognized the Pope of Alexandria as their own supreme leader in exactly the same fashion. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church was still under the overall leadership of Alexandria for until 1959, and only by an official act of the Pope of Alexandria.
In the West, there was only one very old bishopric and that was Rome. So it should surprise nobody that bishops in the West began to submit to Rome over time. So yes, the process of the 5 great cities becoming the unofficial (and later official) head of all Christendom did start before Constantine. Each of the five cities clearly had their own sphere of influence.
Quote:
In the year 382, Pope Damasus wroteIn A.D, 404, St. John Chrysostom wrote
These are examples that can't be taken seriously because they come well after Constantine and other emperors elevated bishops to powerful political rulers and granted primacy to Rome and Constantinople. The truly interesting fact is that immediate contemporaries of Constantine like "Pope" Sylvester were surprisingly quiet and unassuming despite the authority upgrade they had just received. If any bishop was acting as sole leader of Christendom leading up to and during the Council of Nicaea, it was Athanasius and most certainly not Sylvester.
Quote:
Many other examples of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the early Church could be added. Even from the earliest years, the bishop of Rome had - and everyone recognized that he had - a special authority in the Church.
Yet all of your best examples come at least 150 yeas after the earliest "Popes." If you can provide examples where Linus and Anacletus actually led the whole church, then you'd really have something. Otherwise, all I'm seeing is a gradual and growing tradition, mostly in the western half of the empire, of submitting to Rome.
The first Pope to really act the part of Pope 100% was Gregory I - 590AD to 604AD. So why were all popes prior to Gregory so timid?
Quote:
Those who say the papacy is a "medieval Roman invention," are either ignorant of history or dishonest.
Medieval Rome is centuries later than what I'm claiming. My claim is that the Bishop of Rome (along with Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople) gradually moves into the vacuum of power left by the apostles. That process was very gradual and begins with the death the last apostle John. The process led to the Pope not only claiming successorship to Peter, but eventually claiming to be the rightful successor to the Roman Emperor as well. This is precisely the pattern we see throughout history when a monarch is constantly trying to grab more and more power for themselves and their successors.
Ultimately, it is the entire concept of Apostolic Succession that is the best evidence against Apostolic Succession. The claim is that God simply stops talking to humanity. "I am the LORD, and I do not change." And yet, the entire doctrine of Apostolic Succession: including the closure of scriptural canon and the notion that "God will never again have anything to say to humanity that is worth writing down" contracts that scripture. What Apostolic Succession and these other doctrines claim is that God did indeed change. After all, God's entire program of periodic divine communication with humanity got tossed in the garbage for some reason. Pretty big change there.
Another evidence to add to that is the fact that over the ages the Popes have most certainly acted the part of the ravening wolves that Christ warned his disciples of, and that "by their fruits ye shall know them." So when does a ravening wolf become "Vicar of Christ" exactly?
Sorry, Thunder, can't "rep" you. These history revisionists don't seem to realize that all of this is documented and their revisions won't fly when people are capable of researching the facts.
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.
Answers to Five Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy
