How Reliable is Roman Catholic History

[AgThorn]

Excellent article on "creative" apologetics to support the papal office
==========================================================================

How Reliable Is Roman Catholic History?

An Example in a Recent Edition of This Rock Magazine

Roman Catholic apologists are going about the land presenting seminars and
talks in parish halls and church buildings, all designed to 1) confirm the
faithful in their allegiance to Rome and the Papacy, and 2) invite the
"separated brethren home to Mother Church." While the number of RC
apologists has grown exponentially over the past decade, the one gentleman
who has been out-front, or maybe better, in light of the article we will be
reviewing, "up-front," the longest, is Karl Keating, president of Catholic
Answers.

In a recent article in the December, 1996 edition of This Rock magazine,
Keating introduces his readers to Liber Pontificalis, The Book of Pontiffs.
Keating doesn't give his readers much background on the book. I quote from
J.N.D. Kelly, who describes the work:

A collection of papal biographies from St Peter to Pius II (d. 1464),
compiled in its first redaction in the middle of the 6th cent. and extended
by later hands. While much of the material embodied, especially in the
earlier section, is apocryphal, the work is in the main based on valuable
sources, and while it is often biased it is indispensable for the history
of the papacy (J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, (1986), xi).

One is struck by the fact that Keating, despite an early acknowledgement of
some factual problems with the work, accepts every word of Liber
Pontificalis that he quotes as if it were solid history, and he is dealing
with the very first stories of the first Popes-material Kelly specifically
identifies as mainly "apocryphal." Keating notes,

Not all of the lives are reliable, it should be noted. The Liber
Pontificalis needs to be supplemented with information from other ancient
texts. In the best-known error, the compiler lists the fifth pope as
Aneclitus, who turns out really to have been the same man as the third
pope, Cletus, who also was known as Anencletus. The mix-up must have been
because of the dual name.

Aside from the uncritical use of Liber Pontificalis, the main focus of our
criticism of Mr. Keating's article will center upon the issues raised by
the letter commonly identified as Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians. I
quote from Keating:

There is no disputing, though, the identity of the "intervening" pope,
Clement, known to history as Clement of Rome and the author of an epistle,
addressed to the Corinthians, that is used by Catholic apologists to show
the early exercise of papal authority.

We note that it is Keating himself who acknowledges the use of this epistle
by Catholic apologists. It is indeed often used to present an "early
exercise of papal authority." What kind of authority? Keating continues:

It seems that the Corinthians had called on Clement to settle a dispute
(the poor Corinthians were still troubled, long decades after Paul had
tried to straighten them out -- apparently with insufficient success). The
last surviving apostle, John, lived much closer to them and would have been
the logical adjudicator, but they didn't write to him. They wrote to the
successor of the chief apostle, and Pope Clement replied in tones of
authority.

While Keating moves on to other issues, dwelling mainly on speculations
based upon the apocryphal stories contained in Liber Pontificalis, I would
like to provide the reader with a much more accurate view of this supposed
"early exercise of papal authority" that is so easily assumed by Roman
apologists. What is the truth about Clement's epistle to the Corinthians?
Does it, indeed, provide us with a first century example of papal
supremacy?

Let's Look at the Facts

First and foremost, there is tremendous confusion concerning the early
"lists" of the bishops of Rome, and for good reason. Different sources give
different renderings. Why? As simple as it may sound, the reason is easily
discovered: no one really cared for the first century of the history of the
church at Rome. All the lists come from at the earliest many decades later,
and show a concern that did not arise until the Church as a whole began
struggling with heresy and began formulating concepts of authority to use
against heretics. But in those first decades, even into the middle of the
second century, no one was particularly concerned about who the bishop of
Rome was. Why? Because no one had the concepts that Rome now presents as
"ancient." No one thought the bishop of any one church was above any other,
or that the bishop of Rome was somehow invested with any particular
authority.

No Monarchical Episcopate

What's more, there is a fatal historical fact that is overlooked
consistently by Roman Catholic apologists. Joseph F. Kelly in his The
Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (The Liturgical Press, 1992), p.
2, notes,

The word "pope" was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the
ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a
college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.

J.N.D. Kelly likewise notes this reality:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the
first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical
episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as
distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the
mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).

When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander,
Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), Kelly consistently notes the same
thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time! Only with
Hyginus does he say that the monarchical episcopate is beginning to emerge,
and does so with Pius 1, 142-155 A.D.

What does this mean? Well, it's pretty hard for there to be an exercise of
"papal authority" when there is no papacy! The primitive form of church
government found in Rome is the biblical one: a plurality of elders. What
is more, this is the same form of government plainly portrayed in the
epistle Mr. Keating makes reference to! We note Kelly's words again
concerning Clement:

The claim that he died a martyr, supported by LP [i.e., Liber Pontificalis,
the work Keating is citing from] and the canon of the mass, should be
rejected in view of the silence of the earliest authorities; the story,
too, that he was banished to the Crimea, successfully preached the gospel
there, and was killed by being drowned with an anchor around his neck, is
without foundation. Almost the only reliable information that survives
about him is that he was responsible for, probably author of, the so-called
First Epistle of Clement, the most import ant 1st cent. Christian document
outside the N.T. It was a letter of remonstrance addressed c.96 to the
church at Corinth (where fierce dissensions had broken out and some
presbyters had been deposed) which Clement probably drafted as the leading
presbyter-bishop. After setting out the principle on which the orderly
succession of bishops and deacons rests and tracing it back to Jesus
Christ, it called for the reinstatement of the extruded presbyters. The
letter is the earliest example of the intervention, fraternal but
authoritative, of the Roman church, though not of the pope personally, in
the affairs of another Church. Widely read in Christian antiquity, it was
sometimes treated as part of the NT canon.

While Clement's position as a leading presbyter and spokesman of the
Christian community at Rome is assured, his letter suggests that the
monarchical episcopate had not yet emerged there, and it is therefore
impossible to form any precise conception of his constitutional role (p.
8).

A few things should be noted. First, Kelly recognizes that we are not even
certain when the letter was written, nor that Clement himself wrote it.
Secondly, he points out that the letter indicates a plurality of elders,
not a monarchical episcopate, existing in Rome at this time. Thirdly, and
very importantly, the points out that the letter remonstrating with the
Corinthians is not a papal letter, but a letter from the church at Rome.

The Church at Rome, not the Bishop at Rome

The simple historical fact is that the early examples of Roman power are
not of the bishop of Rome but of the church at Rome. The prestige of the
bishop developed from the prestige of the church abiding at the capital of
the Roman Empire. Modern Roman dogma has it backwards: the prestige of Rome
does not come from having the "Successor of Peter" within her: the bishop
of Rome gained his prestige because of the geographical and political
location of the church itself! J.B. Lightfoot, writing in the last century
(prior to much of the research that has demonstrated the later rise of the
monarchical episcopate) notes:

There is all the difference in the world between the attitude of Rome
towards other churches at the close of the first century, when the Romans
as a community remonstrate on terms of equality with the Corinthians on
their irregularities, strong only in the righteousness of their cause, and
feeling as they had a right to feel, that these counsels of peace were the
dictation of the Holy Spirit, and its attitude at the close of the second
century, when Victor the bishop excommunicates the Churches of Asia Minor
for clinging to a usage in regard to the celebration of Easter which had
been handed down to them from the Apostles, and thus foments instead of
healing dissensions....Even this second stage has carried the power of Rome
only a very small step in advance towards the assumptions of a Hildebrand
or an Innocent or a Boniface, or even of a Leo: but it is nevertheless a
decided step. The substitution of the bishop of Rome for the Church of Rome
is an all important point. The later Roman theory supposes that the Church
of Rome derives all its authority from the bishop of Rome, as the successor
of S. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that, as a matter of
fact, the power of the bishop of Rome was built upon the power of the
Church of Rome (The Apostolic Fathers Vol 1:70).

Other Early Witnesses

Early documents from the history of the Church make this even more plain.
The 35th canon of the Apostolic Canons (dated from the 2nd to 5th
centuries) says:

The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and
to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his
consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own
parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without
the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and
God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Likewise, the Council of Nicća's 6th canon read:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the
Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is
customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other
provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

And a full three and a half centuries after Clement's epistle, an
ecumenical council at Chalcedon could clearly recognize why Rome had the
prerogatives she did, as seen in the 28th canon of Chalcedon:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and
acknowledging the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and
decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of
Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted
privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And
the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same
consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome,
justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the
Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in
ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after
her.

When Ignatius wrote to the Romans, he not only did not address any one
bishop (for there was no single bishop in Rome at the time), but he spoke
of the "presidency" of Rome being one of love and honor, not universal
jurisdiction, prompting Lightfoot to comment,

...this then was the original primacy of Rome-a primacy not of the bishop
but of the whole church, a primacy not of official authority but of
practical goodness, backed however by the prestige and the advantages which
were necessarily enjoyed by the church of the metropolis.

Throughout the Epistle of Clement, the first person plural "we" is used,
never "I." Clement does not speak as a Pope, does not "remonstrate" as a
Pope. Instead, the church at Rome writes as a fellow and equal body of
believers. This is the verdict of any honest, unbiased reading of the
epistle.

The Power of Roman Anachronism

To read Papal prerogatives into Clement's epistle is to demonstrate what
happens when you find yourself bound under the following dogmatic belief
from Vatican I:

...we, therefore, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the
Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred Council, do judge it to be
necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in
accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the
doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred
Apostolic Primacy...

At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been
ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those
who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the
Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all
the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction;

The Roman Catholic apologist, bound to such a claim that runs directly in
the face of history itself, has to balance the demands of faith in the
Papacy with simple honesty in historical research. Sadly, allegiance to
Rome normally wins out. Keating doesn't mention any of the historical facts
about Clement's epistle mentioned above. He allows the claim that this is
an early exercise of Papal power to stand without comment. Yet, such a
claim is, in reality, nothing more than an act of blind faith, made with
eyes firmly closed to the historical realities themselves.

Roman supremacy developed over time, beginning with the geographical,
social, and political advantages associated with being in the capital of
the Empire. Rome was the only Western apostolic see; the East had multiple
apostolic sees, including Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and eventually
Constantinople as well. It is hardly a coincidence that Rome and Eastern
Orthodoxy to this day demonstrate in their ecclesiology the very
differences one would expect to arise from the facts of history: Rome
demanding allegiance to one, centralized authority in the bishop of Rome,
while Orthodoxy, forced by history to deal with multiple centers of
authority, presents a concept of "collegiality."

When Rome the Empire fell, the bishop of Rome stepped into the vacuum, and
the rest, as they say, is "history." But to make this historical
development one that was intended by Christ and implemented by the
Apostles, is to read into history a reality that is not only absent, but is
contrary to the actual facts.

James White

January, 1997
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Please respond to all publicly posted messages publicly ... (SPAM protector: remove asterisk [*] from my
reply address to send e-mail ...)

[BAM1106016]

What a joke of an article. As far as scholarship goes, give it an F.

BAM

[Edward Thorne]

In <3466598d...@news2.ibm.net> wds@*pobox.com (AgThorn) writes:
>
>Excellent article on "creative" apologetics to support the papal
office
>======================================================================
===

I deleted the article because it is too long.

I am indebted to Bill for posting it.

James White is a good writer, and he knows his Catholic history. BTW,
BIll, he also knows his Lutheran history, and it is in his writings
wherein I read of Luther's concept that the 'saved' soul is a
snow-covered dunghill.

Now, as for his assertion that the authority of the Roman church was at
first exercised collegially is not a problem for me. Things work
better that way. Even the Apostles in Jerusalem worked collegially.

If today, we were to revert to a collegial primacy of the Roman church,
I would have no problem with it.

Now, as for the idea that the primacy of Rome is based on its position
of the Roman empire, that is false. The primacy of Rome is based on the
fact that Peter and Paul both worked there and died there.

It was not until much later, like the 5th cent or so --memory memory!
that being the capital of the empire was justification for the primacy.

As for that canon of the council of Chalcedon, that was rejected by
Leo, and therefore was never part of the doctrine, teaching, or
practice of the church.

Constantinople is no more an apostolic see --i e founded by an Apostle
--than the diocese of Bridgeport!

Even if collegiality were the early rule, there still had to be a
leader.

Oh! Clement's letter is no mere chastisement from a brother church,
but an admonition, guided by the Holy Spirit, to the Christians at
Corinth, to straighten out UNDER PAIN OF SIN.

His idea about how unimportant it was to list the popes of Rome until
later is nothing more than mere speculation.

It belongs to the "..well, there are no records, but this is advanced
as theory ..." and low and behold, theory becomes fact.

So, White's argument, though well put, is full of holes. He lays traps
for the unwary.

Bill, try reading a Catholic history of the primacy. Get some balance
into your life.

"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me."

Ed

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Now, as for his assertion that the authority of the Roman church was at
> first exercised collegially is not a problem for me. Things work
> better that way. Even the Apostles in Jerusalem worked collegially.

> If today, we were to revert to a collegial primacy of the Roman church,
> I would have no problem with it.

But then again it would matter just how one defined "collegial primacy".
If Rome were to return to the Church, the bishop of Rome would exercise his
position within the Church as first among equals. He would no longer have
the immediate jurisdiction over every diocese and bishop under him (since
they would no longer be "under him"). Do you think that the bishop of Rome
would be willing to return to the same organization that used to exist
within the Roman Catholic Church when it was simply part of the Catholic
Church?

> Now, as for the idea that the primacy of Rome is based on its position
> of the Roman empire, that is false. The primacy of Rome is based on the
> fact that Peter and Paul both worked there and died there.

Those same ancient histories all refer to Rome's position because of it's
great size, it's position as capital of the empire, that it also was an
Apostolic see. That St. Peter and St. Paul died their gave it a special
status, a place to go on pilgrimage, etc., but not some primacy.

> It was not until much later, like the 5th cent or so --memory memory!
> that being the capital of the empire was justification for the primacy.

Which may have coincided with Rome's claims or opinions of herself. But
then again, St. Irenaeus referred to Rome as very great (meaning large),
and very ancient (meaning old), possessing a tradition that was founded by
and established there by St. Paul and St. Peter, (meaning that it was an
Apostolic See and held the Apostolic Faith). And unless one mistranslates
a few words, there is nothing from the beginning to give Rome a primacy
within the Church, except for what the Church did. Being the capital was
just one of the reasons, otherwise, Jerusalem, the Mother Church of
Christendom would still be the Church that held the primacy within the
Church.

> As for that canon of the council of Chalcedon, that was rejected by
> Leo, and therefore was never part of the doctrine, teaching, or
> practice of the church.

But later accepted. And originally accepted by his legates. Remember his
objection was that Constantinople was not founded by an Apostle, and his
objection was that a new see was being given a place of honor before sees
that were.

> Constantinople is no more an apostolic see --i e founded by an Apostle
> --than the diocese of Bridgeport!

Doesn't matter. Nor do I disagree with what you have said. Just as
truthful is the probability that Rome was founded by St. Paul, or by folks
taught by him who went there first. But that would mess up the myth.
Another reason why the bishop of Rome no longer writes in the name of St.
Peter and Paul.

> Even if collegiality were the early rule, there still had to be a
> leader.

Being chairman of the board makes one a leader, but with only one vote, and
able to be over ruled. Your definition of a leader, however, is more
dictator than what the bishop of Rome used to be in the Church.

> Oh! Clement's letter is no mere chastisement from a brother church,
> but an admonition, guided by the Holy Spirit, to the Christians at
> Corinth, to straighten out UNDER PAIN OF SIN.

As were other letters written by various bishops to their brother bishops
over the years going back to around that same time period. But since St.
Clement wasn't bishop of Rome when he wrote it, papal claims don't apply.

> His idea about how unimportant it was to list the popes of Rome until
> later is nothing more than mere speculation.

No more speculative than who those bishops were. That there were more than
one bishop in Rome and that the list only included the better known ones,
is just as probable as believing the list that has been produced.
Tradition has it that St. Clement was ordained a bishop by St. Peter. One
doesn't hear that about Linus. If St. Peter did make St. Clement Bishop of
Rome, then St. Peter wasn't the bishop of Rome either.

> It belongs to the "..well, there are no records, but this is advanced
> as theory ..." and low and behold, theory becomes fact.

Which fairly describes the "proof" of all the lists. More is known now
about ancient history than was know a thousand years ago. More may be
found out in the future than we know now. Look at how many centuries the
forgery called the "Donation of Constantine" was used by the Roman Catholic
Church as justification for her theories about herself. Look at the
"theology" that came from that forgery. When it was proved to be false,
Rome had to come up with new "proofs" to support those claims based on a
forgery. And proof texting was born.

> So, White's argument, though well put, is full of holes. He lays traps
> for the unwary.

No more than classical history written and provided by the Roman Catholic
Church.

> Bill, try reading a Catholic history of the primacy. Get some balance
> into your life.

Indeed, do that. And compare that to a Roman Catholic history of the
primacy. You will see the difference.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan says:

>Being chairman of the board makes one a leader, but with only one vote, and
>able to be over ruled. Your definition of a leader, however, is more
>dictator than what the bishop of Rome used to be in the Church.

So you prefer majority vote. God appointed leaders in the OT, and appointed
Peter in the NT. So it is not illogical to conclude that God believes in
hierarchy and obedience - not one man one vote.
But you also forget that the Pope is elected by majority vote.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan says:
>
> >Being chairman of the board makes one a leader, but with only one vote, and
> >able to be over ruled. Your definition of a leader, however, is more
> >dictator than what the bishop of Rome used to be in the Church.
>

> So you prefer majority vote.

No. I just don't like dictators.

> God appointed leaders in the OT, and appointed
> Peter in the NT. So it is not illogical to conclude that God believes in
> hierarchy and obedience - not one man one vote.

And leadership roles were within the Church and not over them.

> But you also forget that the Pope is elected by majority vote.

Of people who don't have all the powers that the pope then is given by them.
Priests don't consecrate bishops since they don't have what bishops have. Yet
somehow this is lost when one becomes a pope.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> >Which may have coincided with Rome's claims or opinions of herself.
>

> No, those go back to Clement.

No they don't. Clement wrote a letter from the Church at Rome. Other
bishops did the same thing amongst each other. It really is a big so what.

> As I said, the idea that Rome was the capital was not advanced to
> justify the primacy until much later.

By Rome perhaps, but it was a factor from the beginning.

> >> As for that canon of the council of Chalcedon, that was rejected by
> >> Leo, and therefore was never part of the doctrine, teaching, or
> >> practice of the church.
> >
> >But later accepted. And originally accepted by his legates.
>

> Legates =/= the pope.

Regardless, the legates had no problem with it. So it was not something
plucked out of nowhere.

> >> Even if collegiality were the early rule, there still had to be a
> >> leader.
> >
> >Being chairman of the board makes one a leader, but with only one vote,
> and
> >able to be over ruled. Your definition of a leader, however, is more
> >dictator than what the bishop of Rome used to be in the Church.
>

> Did you ever hear of the story of Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet. It
> seems that there was a cabinet meeting,and the vote was 8-1, with
> Lincoln's being the '1'.

> So, the members said, the vote is 8-1; it looks like you lose.
>
> Abe said, no, I win. But, they said, there are eight votes against you.
>
> Abe said, but I am the President, and I have 9 votes!
>
> The same would apply to a collegial episcopacy and a collegial primacy
> also.

Which means that you don't believe in a collegial episcopacy nor a
collegial primacy but the same dictatorship that the Roman Catholic Church
has today. Fine. Just be clear about it.

> A collegial episcopacy would be a kock-a-mamie arrangement, and it is
> easy to see how a one-man episcopacy is the model for leadership.

Only when you have no faith in the workings of the Holy Spirit.

> There can be only one captain to a ship.

That is Christ for the Orthodox Catholic Church. You should consider
getting on the ark of salvation.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan says:

>No. I just don't like dictators.

What if the dictator is inspired by God and his advisers are dead wrong?

>And leadership roles were within the Church and not over them.
>

You have completely negated the definition of the word "leader".
More doubletalk. At least my words mean what they mean. There is no solution in
your church formula, since there is no one to resolve disputes. It becomes a
shouting match, and the loser says "I quit". Without a visible head, that we
can see and hear, there is no unity.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> You have completely negated the definition of the word "leader".
> More doubletalk. At least my words mean what they mean. There is no solution in
> your church formula, since there is no one to resolve disputes. It becomes a
> shouting match, and the loser says "I quit". Without a visible head, that we
> can see and hear, there is no unity.

Just one further thought on this. The Roman Catholic Church, after going through a
series of competing popes, had to attempt to establish this "need" to protect
herself from going through all of that again. The fact that the Roman Catholic
Church used councils to decide who the pope would be amongst the pretenders,
clearly showing the role that the council used to have in the Roman Catholic
Church, has walked away from councils and the faith that the Holy Spirit would lead
their church to the truth. Instead it is safer (especially for the fellow in
office) to consolidate all of that into one bishop and making him the one source of
authority.

You need the visible "leader" or dictator or whatever you want to think of him
since you have abandoned the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps rejected would
be a better way of putting it.

While you may try to make up situations for what may happen in the Church, bear in
mind that they haven't. They did happen in the Roman Catholic Church. They have
not happened in the Orthodox Catholic Church. Nor will they.

It was refreshing to hear His All Holiness, the Patriarch of Constantinople clearly
tell his Roman Catholic audience that there is one true faith, the Holy Orthodox
Catholic Church. For Rome to come home, Rome will have to change. It should
silence those who keep insisting that there really is little difference between the
Church that Christ established here on earth and the Roman Catholic church.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan seems to think that the Holy Spirit will only act "corporately" through a
large group of persons, not through an individual. Secondly, the break from
the Catholic Church by his "orthodox" church, was a minority action. The
majority of bishops in Christendom accepted the Pope as the Vicar of Christ.
And the expression, "first among equals" has no meaning unless the first among
equals can be called upon to resolve a dispute among the "seconds among
equals".

BAM

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <346d88df...@news2.ibm.net>, wds@*pobox.com wrote:

You make it sound like Peter and
> Paul went to Rome base the future church there .... the Christian church
> was "based" in Jerusalem <period> .... This is called reading history
> backwards...

Peter and Paul did go to Rome to establish the Christian Church there.
This was the "seed" that later converted most of Europe. The special
status of Rome was obvious to Christians even in the first three centuries
(read Eusebius). If the Christian Church stayed in Jerusalem or some
other city, it never would have become the dominant religion of the
Western World.

The Pope is not a dictator. He makes the final decision, only after due
deliberation of the Magisterium. His decisions are not all infallible,
only very specific ones.

The arguments about the Pope as head of the Church and what that means are
getting very old.

Mike

[AgThorn]

eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>The factor was that Peter and Paul died there.

This "fact" is solely in recognition of Rome being the civilian center of
civilization at the time (remember the Roman empire?) and does not have a
thing to do with the Roman church today. You make it sound like Peter and

Paul went to Rome base the future church there .... the Christian church
was "based" in Jerusalem <period> .... This is called reading history
backwards...

[Edward Thorne]

In <346d88df...@news2.ibm.net> wds@*pobox.com (AgThorn) writes:
>
>eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
>>The factor was that Peter and Paul died there.
>
>This "fact" is solely in recognition of Rome being the civilian center
of
>civilization at the time (remember the Roman empire?) and does not
have a
>thing to do with the Roman church today. You make it sound like Peter
and
>Paul went to Rome base the future church there .... the Christian
church
>was "based" in Jerusalem <period> .... This is called reading history
>backwards...

Well, what happened to the church after 70 A. D.? SInce its base was
destroyed, did it cease to exist?

There's an old saying, Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. Wherever Peter goes,
the church goes with him. So, if Peter had gone to Salamanca, the
church would have been headquartered there.

"I hate men of divided heart, but how I love your law."

Ed

[Stephanie Rendino]

In article <davidchik-141...@davidchik.oro.net>,
Mike Davidchik <davi...@oro.net> wrote:

>The Pope is not a dictator. He makes the final decision, only after due
>deliberation of the Magisterium. His decisions are not all infallible,
>only very specific ones.

This is absolutely true, although the ultramontanists and the
anti-Catholics here will both not want to admit it.

[Padraic42]

In article <346B047E...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> writes:

>
>That works in the Roman Catholic Church only because you don't trust that the
>Holy
>Spirit can do what Christ said it could or would.

Problem is Evan, we believe in what the Catholic Church teaches and does
'precosely "because" we trust that Christ can do what He sdaid he would do.
You didn't.

Pax Christi, Pat
"If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his
cross, and begin to follow in my footsteps." (Matt.16:24)
(http://members.aol.com/Padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan seems to think that the Holy Spirit will only act "corporately" through a
> large group of persons, not through an individual.

No, but you think that the Holy Spirit will only work through one individual, the
bishop of Rome. So you are far more exclusive than what you are trying to portray
me as being.

> Secondly, the break from the Catholic Church by his "orthodox" church, was a
> minority action.

The Roman Catholic Church left the Catholic Church. Let's see, you have the bishop
of Rome. The Catholic Church had the bishop of Constantinople, the bishop of
Antioch, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Crete, the Bishop of Alexandria,
just to name the heads of the Churches back then. So, who was in the minority?

> The majority of bishops in Christendom accepted the Pope as the Vicar of Christ.

Rome was a large church within Christendom, but only those who were within his
jurisdiction accepted that, and only much later, well after the Roman Catholic
Church left the Church. And again it shows what happens when one gives up the

guidance of the Holy Spirit.

> And the expression, "first among equals" has no meaning unless the first among

> equals can be called upon to resolve a dispute among the "seconds among
> equals".

I suggest that you look up the word "equal" in a dictionary. And look up the word
"among". You justify a dictatorship by twisting the words "first among equals", I
don't, and the Church doesn't.

Evan

[Jim Wood]

Evan Kalenik wrote:

> >> Padraic42 wrote:
> >> Problem is Evan, we believe in what the Catholic Church teaches and does
> >> 'precosely "because" we trust that Christ can do what He sdaid he would do.
> >> You didn't.
>

> Correctly stated you believe in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. You do
> not believe in what the Catholic Church teaches. I do. That is the difference.

Sad how it just twists some folks so out of shape to even consider that thevisible
Church Jesus founded just happens to be the Roman Catholic Church.
But I guess it's not any worse than all of Jesus' followers who left him when
he told them they would have to eat his body and drink his blood - after
undoubtedly having seen him perform so many miracles.

Jim Wood

[FTT]

BAM1106016 <bam11...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971114141...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

Evan seems to think that the Holy Spirit will only act "corporately"
through a

large group of persons, not through an individual. Secondly, the break

from
the Catholic Church by his "orthodox" church, was a minority action. The

majority of bishops in Christendom accepted the Pope as the Vicar of
Christ.

And the expression, "first among equals" has no meaning unless the first
among
equals can be called upon to resolve a dispute among the "seconds among
equals".

BAM

Come on BAM your reply to Evan is a sham
at best.

FTT

[Edward Thorne]

In <346F05EE...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Padraic42 wrote:
>
>> Problem is Evan, we believe in what the Catholic Church teaches and
does
>> 'precosely "because" we trust that Christ can do what He sdaid he
would do.
>> You didn't.
>
>Correctly stated you believe in what the Roman Catholic Church
teaches. You do
>not believe in what the Catholic Church teaches. I do.

No you don't!

The church that you subscribe to, has refused to recognize the primacy
of Rome since 1054!

Up to that time, the Patriarchs of Constantinople readily acknowledged
the petrine primacy. After 1054, they split off.

And THAT is the difference. That is why we call the Eastern Church
schismatic.

> That is the difference.

"As soon as I lie down, I fall peacefully asleep, for you alone, O
Lord, bring security to my dwelling."

Ed

>
>Evan
>
>

[Edward Thorne]

In <346F0754...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>BAM1106016 wrote:
>
>> Evan seems to think that the Holy Spirit will only act "corporately"
through a
>> large group of persons, not through an individual.
>

>No, but you think that the Holy Spirit will only work through one
individual, the
>bishop of Rome. So you are far more exclusive than what you are
trying to portray
>me as being.

That is because, in the last line of defence of the one, true, faith,
the pope, as Peter's lawful successor, is the sign of unity in
discipline, and oneness in faith.

>
>> Secondly, the break from the Catholic Church by his "orthodox"
church, was a
>> minority action.
>

>The Roman Catholic Church left the Catholic Church. Let's see, you
have the bishop
>of Rome. The Catholic Church had the bishop of Constantinople, the
bishop of
>Antioch,

Which bp of Antioch do you have in mind?

the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Crete, the Bishop of
Alexandria,

The Coptic bishop of Alexandria?

>just to name the heads of the Churches back then. So, who was in the
minority?
>

>> The majority of bishops in Christendom accepted the Pope as the
Vicar of Christ.
>

>Rome was a large church within Christendom, but only those who were
within his
>jurisdiction accepted that, and only much later, well after the Roman
Catholic
>Church left the Church. And again it shows what happens when one
gives up the
>guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Remember, the church early accepted the idea that appeals were to made
from the dioceses to Rome.

>
>> And the expression, "first among equals" has no meaning unless the
first among
>> equals can be called upon to resolve a dispute among the "seconds
among
>> equals".
>

>I suggest that you look up the word "equal" in a dictionary. And look
up the word
>"among". You justify a dictatorship by twisting the words "first
among equals", I
>don't, and the Church doesn't.

1st among equals means merely 1st ceremoniously.It conveys no meaning
of authority whatsoever.

[Evan Kalenik]

Stephanie Rendino wrote:

The Catholics will not want to admit it. The Roman Catholics should. If
only they would read the bull on papal infallibility. The bishop of Rome can
declare whatever he wants as infallible teaching. Anything. On his own.
With or without the consent or agreement of anyone else within the Roman
Catholic Church. Read your own dogma, my dear.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> The church that you subscribe to, has refused to recognize the primacy
> of Rome since 1054!

It was only when Rome started to pretend that she had a primacy over the
Church, which was before 1054, that the problems started.

> Up to that time, the Patriarchs of Constantinople readily acknowledged
> the petrine primacy. After 1054, they split off.

Since all bishops were "of Peter", what "petrine primacy" are you talking
about? Petrine succession? A belief that the Roman Catholic Church held
for herself that the rest of the Church did not acknowledge? So what are
you talking about?

> And THAT is the difference. That is why we call the Eastern Church
> schismatic.

And because the Roman Catholic Church abandoned the Apostolic Faith and
has introduced new beliefs, including some that are contrary to the
Apostolic Faith the Roman Catholic Church is among the heretical churches
of the ages.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Mike Davidchik wrote:

> Peter and Paul did go to Rome to establish the Christian Church there.

Just as they went elsewhere to establish the Christian Church there.

> This was the "seed" that later converted most of Europe.

Just as all of the other apostolic sees were the "seed" that later converted
the areas in which they found themselves.

> The special status of Rome was obvious to Christians even in the first three
> centuries
> (read Eusebius).

Please do.

> If the Christian Church stayed in Jerusalem or some other city, it never
> would have become the dominant religion of the Western World.

Which proves what?

> The Pope is not a dictator. He makes the final decision, only after due
> deliberation of the Magisterium. His decisions are not all infallible,
> only very specific ones.

You really should read the Bull on Papal Infallibility where the bishop of
Rome can act on his own.

> The arguments about the Pope as head of the Church and what that means are
> getting very old.

Well, when a lie is repeated over and over and over it is difficult to
convince people that the lie is not the truth. This is the case regarding the
bishop of Rome being the head of the Church. He wasn't. He might be head of
the Roman Catholic Church, but not the one, holy, catholic and apostolic
Church that Christ established.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> That is because, in the last line of defence of the one, true, faith,
> the pope, as Peter's lawful successor, is the sign of unity in
> discipline, and oneness in faith.

For the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps, but for the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic Church that Christ established, the same Church that Rome used to
belong to, it isn't and wasn't.

> >> Secondly, the break from the Catholic Church by his "orthodox"
> church, was a
> >> minority action.
> >
> >The Roman Catholic Church left the Catholic Church. Let's see, you have
> the bishop
> >of Rome. The Catholic Church had the bishop of Constantinople, the
> bishop of
> >Antioch,
>
> Which bp of Antioch do you have in mind?

What other one was there?

> the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Crete, the Bishop of
> Alexandria,
>
> The Coptic bishop of Alexandria?

Don't you know history? I guess not.

> Remember, the church early accepted the idea that appeals were to made
> from the dioceses to Rome.

If they did not want to go elsewhere. And as we all know, as St. Augustine
said, if you are unhappy with what you hear at Rome, ask for an Ecumenical
Council to decide.

> 1st among equals means merely 1st ceremoniously.It conveys no meaning
> of authority whatsoever.

Exactly, and that was the position that the bishop of Rome had within the
Church.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Funny, we don't see bishops telling other bishops to straighten out
> under pain of sin.

Why else would they be there correcting other bishops?

> >> As I said, the idea that Rome was the capital was not advanced to
> >> justify the primacy until much later.
> >

> >By Rome perhaps, but it was a factor from the beginning.

>
> The factor was that Peter and Paul died there.

Which made it a site for pilgrimages, not much else.

> Again, you have never served in the military. What the legates thought
> counts for nothing.

And you have never lived in a democracy where there is no dictator.

While the legates do not equal the person, the legates found nothing wrong
with raising Constantinople in rank, and encouraged the bishop of Rome to
go along. The problem that the bishop of Rome had was that it upset the
prior idea of apostolic sees having a leadership position within the
Church. Some of that may have been to protect his turf, which is what it
later appears to be the case since that canon was accepted once Rome
established a competing Latin patriarch in Constantinople.

> >Which means that you don't believe in a collegial episcopacy nor a

> >collegial primacy but the same dictatorship that the Roman Catholic
> Church

> >has today. Fine. Just be clear about it.
>

> Well, somebody has to be in charge!

Something that one would make only if they denied the promise that Christ
made to His Church.

> Well, we still have to have visible leadership, because we are still
> visible people.

Which is why the office of Bishop was established.

Evan

[Padraic42]

In article <64k7g9$c...@ocean.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) writes:

>In article <davidchik-141...@davidchik.oro.net>,
>Mike Davidchik <davi...@oro.net> wrote:
>

>>The Pope is not a dictator. He makes the final decision, only after due
>>deliberation of the Magisterium. His decisions are not all infallible,
>>only very specific ones.
>

>This is absolutely true, although the ultramontanists and the
>anti-Catholics here will both not want to admit it.

Those dealing with faith and morals, where he is speaking as the chief
teacher of the Church, for the entire Church, to be held definitevely by
all the faithful. Like "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (i.e. the Church has no
authority to ordain women)

[Padraic42]

In article <346F05EE...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> writes:

>Padraic42 wrote:
>
>> Problem is Evan, we believe in what the Catholic Church teaches and does
>> 'precosely "because" we trust that Christ can do what He sdaid he would do.
>> You didn't.
>
>Correctly stated you believe in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. You
>do

>not believe in what the Catholic Church teaches. I do. That is the
>difference.

Then why aren't you Catholic instead of a protestant fundie in Orthodox
clothing?
Hate to break the news to you Evan, but the Roman Catholic Church IS the
Catholic Church, NOT the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[Padraic42]

In article <346F0754...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net> writes:

>BAM1106016 wrote:
>
>> Evan seems to think that the Holy Spirit will only act "corporately"
>through a
>> large group of persons, not through an individual.
>
>No, but you think that the Holy Spirit will only work through one individual,
>the
>bishop of Rome. So you are far more exclusive than what you are trying to
>portray
>me as being.

In teaching Christ's teaching, yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Pope and
the Magesterium in ALL truths of faith and morals.

Yet, what do you have? A conglomerate of national churches with no
visible head, no 'authoritative' teaching authority. Just a national
bishop who can speak 'only' for his corner of the world.

BTW, I've asked it before. Who infallably said that only 7 Councils
were necessary?

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> In article <346F0754...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik
> <kal...@webspan.net> writes:
>
> >BAM1106016 wrote:
> >
> >> Evan seems to think that the Holy Spirit will only act "corporately"
> >through a
> >> large group of persons, not through an individual.
> >
> >No, but you think that the Holy Spirit will only work through one individual,
> >the
> >bishop of Rome. So you are far more exclusive than what you are trying to
> >portray
> >me as being.
>
> In teaching Christ's teaching, yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Pope and
> the Magesterium in ALL truths of faith and morals.

Which is not what Christ said when He said what the role of the Holy Spirit will
be. He did not say it would guide the bishop of Rome and the Roman Catholic
Magesterium, He said it would guide the Church. So you have abandoned the promise
that Christ made.

> Yet, what do you have? A conglomerate of national churches with no
> visible head, no 'authoritative' teaching authority. Just a national
> bishop who can speak 'only' for his corner of the world.

No, we have the Orthodox Catholic Church, holding the Orthodox Catholic Faith,
spread throughout the world. It is the same Church that existed from the time of
Christ, the same Church that Rome used to belong to.

Your need for a visible head is due to the erroneous Roman Catholic Church's
belief that somehow Christ is missing from the Church. We don't believe that.
You need to fill a vacuum that you created with a man while we have Christ as the
head of the Church.

As for teaching authority, we have Holy Tradition and we have bishops, as we have
had bishops since they were consecrated by the Apostles. We also don't feel the
need to create new revelation since that was done once, by Christ.

> BTW, I've asked it before. Who infallably said that only 7 Councils
> were necessary?

No one. Thankfully there has been no reason to have another council similar to
the first seven.

BTW, are you ever going to answer my question? I guess not. It does answer how
reliable Roman Catholic History is, which is not very reliable at all.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> In article <346F05EE...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik

> <kal...@webspan.net> writes:
>
> >Padraic42 wrote:
> >
> >> Problem is Evan, we believe in what the Catholic Church teaches and does
> >> 'precosely "because" we trust that Christ can do what He sdaid he would do.
> >> You didn't.
> >
> >Correctly stated you believe in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. You
> >do
> >not believe in what the Catholic Church teaches. I do. That is the
> >difference.
>
> Then why aren't you Catholic instead of a protestant fundie in Orthodox
> clothing?

I am Catholic. You are Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism, the first protestant
church.

> Hate to break the news to you Evan, but the Roman Catholic Church IS the
> Catholic Church, NOT the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Since you no longer teach the Apostolic Faith, you are not the "Catholic Church".
Being the Roman Catholic Church you can do whatever you want, no different than
any other Protestant sect, you can claim whatever you want, but it is really
rather meaningless.

Evan

[BAM1106016]

Evan does not believe in Papal infallibility because he does not believe in the
power of the Holy Spirit.

He prefers power politics and gang fights.

BAM

[Evan Kalenik]

AgThorn wrote:

> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
> >> Then why aren't you Catholic instead of a protestant fundie in Orthodox
> >> clothing?
> >
> >I am Catholic. You are Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism, the first protestant
> >church.
>

> Hmmm ... perhaps this is true from a "large" church standpoint, but the
> following quote from Trent makes one wonder:
>
> Cardinal Hosius; (Catholic), President of the Council of Trent, December
> l3, l545 to December 4, l564, said:
>
> "Were it not for the fact that the Baptists have been
> grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during
> the PAST l200 YEARS, they would swarm greater than all
> the reformers....If the truth of religion were to be
> judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man or
> any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and per-
> suasions of no sect can be truer and surer than those
> of the Anabaptists, since there have been none for the
> l200 years past that have been more generally punished
> or that have been more cheerfully and steadfastly under-
> gone, and have offered themselves to the most cruel
> sort of punishment than these people."
>
> ==============
>
> Although I have this quote from a third party and need to verify it, but it
> speaks greatly as to the difference between "Christ's Church" and the
> accepted "Institutional" Church ....

I have seen the "source" of that document. Frankly the idea that the angel moroni gave Joseph Smith some
golden tablets is more plausible. It is an attempt to try to prove, somehow, that there always were
"Baptists". There weren't. The Anabaptists did exist as a heretical sect much earlier on, but they have no
connection with the Baptists who were founded much later on. Even the theology is different. If you read
the statement above you will not find that the Anabaptists were persecuted for 1200 years, just persecuted
1200 years ago perhaps more so than any other heretical group since. It is the proof texting game all over
again.

Remember that there was no "institutional church" vs. "Christ's Church". If some Baptists today want to try
to prove that they have existed "underground" since the first days of the Church, they will be up against
the same facts and truths that the Roman Catholics are when they attempt to claim that this belief or that
belief was always the belief of the Church.

Again, that "version" of Baptist history is even less truthful than Roman Catholic history.

Evan

[AgThorn]

Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

==============

[Edward Thorne]

In <347055C2...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>
>> In article <davidchik-141...@davidchik.oro.net>,
>> Mike Davidchik <davi...@oro.net> wrote:
>>
>> >The Pope is not a dictator. He makes the final decision, only
after due
>> >deliberation of the Magisterium. His decisions are not all
infallible,
>> >only very specific ones.
>>
>> This is absolutely true, although the ultramontanists and the
>> anti-Catholics here will both not want to admit it.
>

>The Catholics will not want to admit it. The Roman Catholics should.
If
>only they would read the bull on papal infallibility. The bishop of
Rome can
>declare whatever he wants as infallible teaching. Anything. On his
own.
>With or without the consent or agreement of anyone else within the
Roman
>Catholic Church. Read your own dogma, my dear.
>
>Evan
>
>
>

My, how condescending! She is probably old enough to be your big
sister!

"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me."

Ed

[Edward Thorne]

In <34705657...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> Well, what happened to the church after 70 A. D.? SInce its base
was
>> destroyed, did it cease to exist?
>>
>> There's an old saying, Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia. Wherever Peter
goes,
>> the church goes with him. So, if Peter had gone to Salamanca, the
>> church would have been headquartered there.
>

>So Christ only had one Apostle and that was it? The other apostles
were
>nothing?

Well, not hardly. :-)

>
>Since St. Peter is in heaven, now, I guess that the church is located
there
>and not here?
>
>Evan
>
Have you never heard of the Church Triumphant?

[Edward Thorne]

In <347058FD...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Jim Wood wrote:
>
>> Sad how it just twists some folks so out of shape to even consider
that thevisible
>> Church Jesus founded just happens to be the Roman Catholic Church.
>

>Rome came from that Church, just as the Anglicans came from Rome.
Neither are the
>Church that Christ established once they departed from the Apostolic
faith.

Jesus established one church, not many Orthodox churches.

>
>> But I guess it's not any worse than all of Jesus' followers who left
him when
>> he told them they would have to eat his body and drink his blood -
after
>> undoubtedly having seen him perform so many miracles.
>

>It does make you wonder why the Roman Catholic Church would give up
its Apostolic
>Faith and instead create a new church. But then again, when you turn
from the
>guidance of the Holy Spirit, anything can happen.

Think again about who it is who has turned from the guidance of the
Holy Spirit.

"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me."

Ed

[Edward Thorne]

In <3470540E...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> Funny, we don't see bishops telling other bishops to straighten out
>> under pain of sin.
>
>Why else would they be there correcting other bishops?

They would have called a synod, and have had the synod do the judging.

But Clement didn't do that ...he said, straighten out under pain of sin
...that is pretty authoritative to me.

ANd guess what ...the Corinthians accepted it, and were still reading
Clem' s letter at Mass 150 years later.

>
>> >> As I said, the idea that Rome was the capital was not advanced to
>> >> justify the primacy until much later.
>> >
>> >By Rome perhaps, but it was a factor from the beginning.
>>
>> The factor was that Peter and Paul died there.
>
>Which made it a site for pilgrimages, not much else.

Irenaeus speaks of Rome as being the source of teaching and unity.

>
>> Again, you have never served in the military. What the legates
thought
>> counts for nothing.
>
>And you have never lived in a democracy where there is no dictator.

Well, I live in the USA; that is a country that you are probably not
familiar with.

>
>While the legates do not equal the person, the legates found nothing
wrong
>with raising Constantinople in rank, and encouraged the bishop of Rome
to
>go along. The problem that the bishop of Rome had was that it upset
the
>prior idea of apostolic sees having a leadership position within the
>Church. Some of that may have been to protect his turf, which is what
it
>later appears to be the case since that canon was accepted once Rome
>established a competing Latin patriarch in Constantinople.

Well, that was 900 years later.

Actually, I think that canon was accepted in the 9th cent.

Besides, the Bishop of Byzantium wanted to be 2nd in precedence after
Rome solely because of his political influence, not because of anything
else.

>
>> >Which means that you don't believe in a collegial episcopacy nor a
>> >collegial primacy but the same dictatorship that the Roman Catholic
>> Church
>> >has today. Fine. Just be clear about it.
>>
>> Well, somebody has to be in charge!
>
>Something that one would make only if they denied the promise that
Christ
>made to His Church.

Well, while we rely on Christ, we do have to act, don't we? Do you
think that all we have to do is to stand around and say, "God will
provide"? Nobody does that.

>
>> Well, we still have to have visible leadership, because we are still
>> visible people.
>
>Which is why the office of Bishop was established.
>
>Evan
>
>

ANd we have to have a symbol of unity in the church, not a cacophony of
discord ...hence, Jesus established the primacy of Peter.

Read the NT, you will see it at work there.

[Edward Thorne]

In <34705808...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> That is because, in the last line of defence of the one, true,
faith,
>> the pope, as Peter's lawful successor, is the sign of unity in
>> discipline, and oneness in faith.
>
>For the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps, but for the one, holy,
catholic and

>apostolic Church that Christ established, the same Church that Rome
used to

>belong to, it isn't and wasn't.

Remember, it was the Greek church that repudiated the Council of
FLorence.

>
>> >> Secondly, the break from the Catholic Church by his "orthodox"
>> church, was a
>> >> minority action.
>> >
>> >The Roman Catholic Church left the Catholic Church. Let's see, you
have
>> the bishop
>> >of Rome. The Catholic Church had the bishop of Constantinople, the
>> bishop of
>> >Antioch,
>>
>> Which bp of Antioch do you have in mind?
>
>What other one was there?

...Nestorian, Jacobite ...

>
>> the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Crete, the Bishop of
>> Alexandria,
>>
>> The Coptic bishop of Alexandria?
>
>Don't you know history? I guess not.

The Coptic bishop of Alexandria is the one occupying St Mark's seat.

>
>> Remember, the church early accepted the idea that appeals were to
made
>> from the dioceses to Rome.
>
>If they did not want to go elsewhere.

There is no place else to go.

And as we all know, as St. Augustine
>said, if you are unhappy with what you hear at Rome, ask for an
Ecumenical
>Council to decide.

That is because it would side with the pope.

>
>> 1st among equals means merely 1st ceremoniously.It conveys no
meaning
>> of authority whatsoever.
>

>Exactly, and that was the position that the bishop of Rome had within
the
>Church.
>

Tell that to ol' Clement! :-)

[Edward Thorne]

In <3470553F...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Mike Davidchik wrote:
>
>> Peter and Paul did go to Rome to establish the Christian Church
there.
>
>Just as they went elsewhere to establish the Christian Church there.
>
>> This was the "seed" that later converted most of Europe.
>
>Just as all of the other apostolic sees were the "seed" that later
converted
>the areas in which they found themselves.
>
>> The special status of Rome was obvious to Christians even in the
first three
>> centuries
>> (read Eusebius).
>
>Please do.

No, he was speaking to you. YOU read Eusebius.

>
>> If the Christian Church stayed in Jerusalem or some other city, it
never
>> would have become the dominant religion of the Western World.
>
>Which proves what?
>

>> The Pope is not a dictator. He makes the final decision, only after
due
>> deliberation of the Magisterium. His decisions are not all
infallible,
>> only very specific ones.
>

>You really should read the Bull on Papal Infallibility where the
bishop of
>Rome can act on his own.
>
>> The arguments about the Pope as head of the Church and what that
means are
>> getting very old.
>
>Well, when a lie is repeated over and over and over it is difficult to
>convince people that the lie is not the truth. This is the case
regarding the
>bishop of Rome being the head of the Church. He wasn't. He might be
head of

>the Roman Catholic Church, but not the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic
>Church that Christ established.

The pope is the head of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic
church, the one founded by Jesus.

As the pope of Rome is the symbol of unity in the church, those bishops
who are in communion with him are united to the body of Christ, the
true vine.

Those that are not are in schism, and I pray that they will return to
the true fold --they and their members --as soon as possible.

[AgThorn]

Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

>I have seen the "source" of that document. Frankly the idea that the angel moroni gave Joseph Smith some
>golden tablets is more plausible. It is an attempt to try to prove, somehow, that there always were
>"Baptists". There weren't. The Anabaptists did exist as a heretical sect much earlier on, but they have no
>connection with the Baptists who were founded much later on. Even the theology is different. If you read
>the statement above you will not find that the Anabaptists were persecuted for 1200 years, just persecuted
>1200 years ago perhaps more so than any other heretical group since. It is the proof texting game all over
>again.
>
>Remember that there was no "institutional church" vs. "Christ's Church". If some Baptists today want to try
>to prove that they have existed "underground" since the first days of the Church, they will be up against
>the same facts and truths that the Roman Catholics are when they attempt to claim that this belief or that
>belief was always the belief of the Church.
>
>Again, that "version" of Baptist history is even less truthful than Roman Catholic history.
>
>Evan
>

I don't put it forth as any sort of proof text on the Baptist church (in
fact neither did the source I got it from but he was accused of doing as
much) ... the point is that individual churches, that believed in Jesus
Christ and adult baptism (not organized in any denominational sense) DID
exist .... not to be confused with what we "officially" call "Baptist"
today ... my only point in putting it forth was to point out that even
Trent acknowledged that there were persecuted Christians outside of the
Roman fold as far back and before Constantine made Christianity legit ...

Bill

[Edward Thorne]

In <3471A6D7...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:
>
>Padraic42 wrote:
>
>> In article <346F0754...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik

>> <kal...@webspan.net> writes:
>>
>> >BAM1106016 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Evan seems to think that the Holy Spirit will only act
"corporately"
>> >through a
>> >> large group of persons, not through an individual.
>> >
>> >No, but you think that the Holy Spirit will only work through one
individual,
>> >the
>> >bishop of Rome. So you are far more exclusive than what you are
trying to
>> >portray
>> >me as being.
>>
>> In teaching Christ's teaching, yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Pope
and
>> the Magesterium in ALL truths of faith and morals.
>
>Which is not what Christ said when He said what the role of the Holy
Spirit will
>be. He did not say it would guide the bishop of Rome and the Roman
Catholic
>Magesterium, He said it would guide the Church. So you have abandoned
the promise
>that Christ made.

No, there are those who have left the church, and are on the outside
looking in. These are the EOs, and they have chosen to be in schism
ever since they repudiated the council of Florence.

>
>> Yet, what do you have? A conglomerate of national churches with no
>> visible head, no 'authoritative' teaching authority. Just a
national
>> bishop who can speak 'only' for his corner of the world.
>
>No, we have the Orthodox Catholic Church, holding the Orthodox
Catholic Faith,
>spread throughout the world.

But, there is no single EO church. There is one in Byznatium, one in
Kiev, one in Moscow, Sofia, Bucharest, Belgrade, and recent
establishments in the Middle East and elsewhere.

It is the same Church that existed from the time of

>Christ, the same Church that Rome used to belong to.

Well, the EO church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ.

>
>Your need for a visible head is due to the erroneous Roman Catholic
Church's
>belief that somehow Christ is missing from the Church.

Christ is not missing! What in the dickens ever gave you that silly
idea?

We don't believe that.
>You need to fill a vacuum that you created with a man while we have

Christ as the
>head of the Church.

The bishop of Rome has always been the sign of unity and the head of
the church.

>
>As for teaching authority, we have Holy Tradition and we have bishops,
as we have
>had bishops since they were consecrated by the Apostles.

But, what good are the bishops? You have repudiated even your own
bishops, which goes to show that you are obstinate in your schism.

We also don't feel the
>need to create new revelation since that was done once, by Christ.

Well, we don't do that!

>
>> BTW, I've asked it before. Who infallably said that only 7 Councils
>> were necessary?
>
>No one. Thankfully there has been no reason to have another council
similar to
>the first seven.

Maybe that is because there is no more emperor to call one.

>
>BTW, are you ever going to answer my question? I guess not. It does
answer how
>reliable Roman Catholic History is, which is not very reliable at all.
>
>Evan
>

It was you that started that thread?

Well, since you repudiate your own bishops, and since you selectively
cite the fathers, and come up with fanciful histories as to when they
exercised their office, and since you repudiate scripture, it is easy
to see that the response you gave above has no merit of its own; it is
utterly worthless.

[Edward Thorne]

In <34705A60...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> The church that you subscribe to, has refused to recognize the
primacy
>> of Rome since 1054!
>
>It was only when Rome started to pretend that she had a primacy over
the
>Church, which was before 1054, that the problems started.
>
>> Up to that time, the Patriarchs of Constantinople readily
acknowledged
>> the petrine primacy. After 1054, they split off.
>
>Since all bishops were "of Peter", what "petrine primacy" are you
talking

>about? Petrine succession? A belief that the Roman Catholic Church

held
>for herself that the rest of the Church did not acknowledge? So what
are
>you talking about?
>
>> And THAT is the difference. That is why we call the Eastern Church
>> schismatic.
>
>And because the Roman Catholic Church abandoned the Apostolic Faith
and
>has introduced new beliefs, including some that are contrary to the
>Apostolic Faith the Roman Catholic Church is among the heretical
churches
>of the ages.
>

You know, you don't know your history.

If the Eastern Church refused to recognize Petrine supremacy, why then
did they submit their disputes to Rome for adjudication?

I will answer that for you: because they recognized the primacy of
Peter and his successors in office.

[AgThorn]

eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>The pope is the head of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic
>church, the one founded by Jesus.

No, only Jesus can make that claim ... the Pope is the head of the Roman
Catholic church.

[Edward Thorne]

In <3474b2b...@news2.ibm.net> wds@*pobox.com (AgThorn) writes:
>
>eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
>>The pope is the head of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic
>>church, the one founded by Jesus.
>
>No, only Jesus can make that claim ... the Pope is the head of the
Roman
>Catholic church.

Of course, what I should have said is that the pope is the head of the
visible church on earth, as the stand in for Jesus until he come again.

[AgThorn]

eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>Of course, what I should have said is that the pope is the head of the
>visible church on earth, as the stand in for Jesus until he come again.

There is NO "stand in" for Jesus Christ. He is THE Mediator, THE High
Priest, THE MOst High, THE Lord on High, THE King of Kings, THE Redeemer.

It is so sad to see how easy "stand in's" can lead us to idolotry. I found
a traditionalist web page that had a picture of John Paul II on it and they
called him "Lord God the Pope" .... very tragic ....

In Jesus Name,
Bill

[BAM1106016]

Doubter asks:

>Would you mind justifying what seems to be, on the face of it, a spiteful
>comment.
>
>

Yes I would; I've been reading Evan's posts for a long time, and you'll have to
take my word for it.

BAM

[Padraic42]

In article <3471A7C9...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>I am Catholic.

And if Evan is a Catholic, then I'm a martian.

[Padraic42]

In article <3471A6D7...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>> In teaching Christ's teaching, yes, the Holy Spirit guides the Pope and

>> the Magesterium in ALL truths of faith and morals.
>
>Which is not what Christ said when He said what the role of the Holy Spirit
>will
>be. He did not say it would guide the bishop of Rome and the Roman Catholic
>Magesterium, He said it would guide the Church. So you have abandoned the
>promise
>that Christ made.

Have I? And I guess you can give me the Scriptural reference where Christ
said that each Apostle could preach the truth according to the region or nation
he was in?

"You are PETER and on THIS ROCK "I" will build MY Church. What is your 'rock'
Evan, which of the numerous 'national' churches, has the authority to teach the
'entire' Church?

Again, who determined Seven Councils were enough Evan?

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> My, how condescending! She is probably old enough to be your big
> sister!

If she was, she would still be told to read the documents that contradict
what she is saying. Those documents are the dogma on papal
infallibility. Sometimes even big sisters need to be corrected.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> In <3470553F...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
> writes:
> >
> >Mike Davidchik wrote:
> >
> >> Peter and Paul did go to Rome to establish the Christian Church
> there.
> >
> >Just as they went elsewhere to establish the Christian Church there.
> >
> >> This was the "seed" that later converted most of Europe.
> >
> >Just as all of the other apostolic sees were the "seed" that later
> converted
> >the areas in which they found themselves.
> >
> >> The special status of Rome was obvious to Christians even in the
> first three
> >> centuries
> >> (read Eusebius).
> >
> >Please do.
>
> No, he was speaking to you. YOU read Eusebius.

I have, and not just some proof texts that the Roman Catholic Church likes
to use to prove her case (regardless of the context within which it was
written). If you were to read all of what he wrote you would realize how
unreliable Roman Catholic history is.

> The pope is the head of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic
> church, the one founded by Jesus.

Yes, that fairly describes Alexandria. It used to also describe the bishop
of Rome. It is too bad it no longer does.

> As the pope of Rome is the symbol of unity in the church, those bishops
> who are in communion with him are united to the body of Christ, the
> true vine.

No, they are simply in communion with the heretical Roman Catholic Church.

> Those that are not are in schism, and I pray that they will return to
> the true fold --they and their members --as soon as possible.

We have left a light on for those who have left the Church over the
centuries. It is hopeful that one day all, including the Roman Catholics,
will give up their wrong beliefs and return to the Church.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

BAM1106016 wrote:

> Evan does not believe in Papal infallibility because he does not believe in the
> power of the Holy Spirit.

No, it is because I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit that papal
infallibility shows itself to be the heresy that it is.

> He prefers power politics and gang fights.

But it was the power politics and gang fights within the Roman Catholic Church that
lead it to come up with some of the nonsense that she has come up with e.g. papal
infallibility. You needed it. You created the need for it. You "fixed" your
problem with it. So don't make charges against others based on your personal
experience.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

AgThorn wrote:

> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
> >Of course, what I should have said is that the pope is the head of the
> >visible church on earth, as the stand in for Jesus until he come again.
>
> There is NO "stand in" for Jesus Christ. He is THE Mediator, THE High
> Priest, THE MOst High, THE Lord on High, THE King of Kings, THE Redeemer.

The point that you are missing is that for Roman Catholics, Christ is somehow absent from the Church.
Therefore they need a fill in or a replacement for the absent Christ.

> It is so sad to see how easy "stand in's" can lead us to idolotry. I found
> a traditionalist web page that had a picture of John Paul II on it and they
> called him "Lord God the Pope" .... very tragic ....

Be a bit careful when looking at a very small minority and trying to project that to the entire Roman
Catholic Church. That said, be also careful when you fail to see anyone correct those small minorities.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> In <34705657...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
> writes:
>
> >Since St. Peter is in heaven, now, I guess that the church is located
> there
> >and not here?
>

> Have you never heard of the Church Triumphant?

Which points out another difference between us. We do not distinguish
between the "Church Militant and the Church Triumphant". They both are
the Church.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Remember, it was the Greek church that repudiated the Council of
> FLorence.

No, it was the Church that rejected it. And if Rome was still following
the same beliefs that existed at the time of the first seven Ecumenical
councils, she also would recognize that it was the Church that rejected it.

> >> >> Secondly, the break from the Catholic Church by his "orthodox"
> church, was
> >> >> a minority action.
> >> >
> >> >The Roman Catholic Church left the Catholic Church. Let's see, you
> have the
> >> >bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church had the bishop of
> Constantinople, the
> >> >bishop of Antioch,
> >>
> >> Which bp of Antioch do you have in mind?
> >
> >What other one was there?
>
> ...Nestorian, Jacobite ...

Were they involved? No. So why mention them?

> >> the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Crete, the Bishop of
> >> Alexandria,
> >>
> >> The Coptic bishop of Alexandria?
> >
> >Don't you know history? I guess not.
>
> The Coptic bishop of Alexandria is the one occupying St Mark's seat.

Again, don't you know history? Were the Copts involved? No.

> >> Remember, the church early accepted the idea that appeals were to made
>
> >> from the dioceses to Rome.
> >
> >If they did not want to go elsewhere.
>
> There is no place else to go.

They also settled things amongst themselves or between themselves. So
there were other places to go.

> And as we all know, as St. Augustine
> >said, if you are unhappy with what you hear at Rome, ask for an
> Ecumenical
> >Council to decide.
>
> That is because it would side with the pope.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. The key is that the highest appeal was
to the Church and not to the bishop of Rome.

> >> 1st among equals means merely 1st ceremoniously.It conveys no meaning
> >> of authority whatsoever.
> >
> >Exactly, and that was the position that the bishop of Rome had within
> the
> >Church.
> >
>
> Tell that to ol' Clement! :-)

He would agree. Remember he wasn't even a bishop of Rome when he wrote his
famous epistle.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> No, there are those who have left the church, and are on the outside
> looking in. These are the EOs, and they have chosen to be in schism
> ever since they repudiated the council of Florence.

Which only goes to show how unreliable Roman Catholic "history" is.

> But, there is no single EO church. There is one in Byznatium, one in
> Kiev, one in Moscow, Sofia, Bucharest, Belgrade, and recent
> establishments in the Middle East and elsewhere.

There never was "one" Orthodox Catholic Church. There was one in Corinth,
there was one in Jerusalem, there was one in Crete, there was one in
Alexandria, there was one in Rome, there was one in Antioch, there was one
in Constantinople, etc. That said, however, there was one Orthodox
Catholic Faith that was believed and practiced in all of those local
churches. The Church was the bishop and his flock, as one of the fathers
said.

> It is the same Church that existed from the time of
> >Christ, the same Church that Rome used to belong to.
>
> Well, the EO church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ.

The Orthodox Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is
the very same Church that the Roman Catholic Church left almost a thousand
years ago so she could practice papal Christianity.

> >Your need for a visible head is due to the erroneous Roman Catholic
> Church's
> >belief that somehow Christ is missing from the Church.
>
> Christ is not missing! What in the dickens ever gave you that silly
> idea?

Why else would you have a "vicar".

> The bishop of Rome has always been the sign of unity and the head of
> the church.

Within Rome, within the geographical area that the Church granted the
bishop of Rome, which was clearly defined and did not extend beyond his
diocese nor co-existed with any other bishop.

> >As for teaching authority, we have Holy Tradition and we have bishops,
> as we have
> >had bishops since they were consecrated by the Apostles.
>
> But, what good are the bishops? You have repudiated even your own
> bishops, which goes to show that you are obstinate in your schism.

I beg your pardon? Where did I do that?

> > We also don't feel the
> >need to create new revelation since that was done once, by Christ.
>
> Well, we don't do that!

You did. Created Grace, papal infallibility, etc., are all new
"revelations". I guess what Christ gave us just wasn't enough to support
Papal Christianity.

> >> BTW, I've asked it before. Who infallably said that only 7 Councils
> >> were necessary?
> >
> >No one. Thankfully there has been no reason to have another council
> similar to
> >the first seven.
>
> Maybe that is because there is no more emperor to call one.

A non-answer.

> >BTW, are you ever going to answer my question? I guess not. It does
> answer how
> >reliable Roman Catholic History is, which is not very reliable at all.

> It was you that started that thread?

No. But my question asks the same question.

> Well, since you repudiate your own bishops, and since you selectively
> cite the fathers, and come up with fanciful histories as to when they
> exercised their office, and since you repudiate scripture, it is easy
> to see that the response you gave above has no merit of its own; it is
> utterly worthless.

Excuse me, but that is the comment that I have made about Roman Catholic
"history" over and over. One that you and the rest have yet to disprove.

It is unfortunate that you are so taken by the myths that make up Roman
Catholic History. But such is the effects of casting out the guidance of
the Holy Spirit.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> Have I? And I guess you can give me the Scriptural reference where Christ
> said that each Apostle could preach the truth according to the region or nation
> he was in?
>
> "You are PETER and on THIS ROCK "I" will build MY Church. What is your 'rock'
> Evan, which of the numerous 'national' churches, has the authority to teach the
> 'entire' Church?

So we should, I guess, toss out of the New Testament all the epistles, except those
that were written by St. Peter?

The "rock", the statement of faith by St. Peter, was the belief of the vast
majority of the fathers and it is only Rome who tries, in an attempt to bolster her
form of papal Christianity, to change that.

> Again, who determined Seven Councils were enough Evan?

Gee, that must be coming from the "tract de jour". Who said it was? But then
again, why were the seven councils called? Not to create new dogma, as is the
practice of the Roman Catholic Church. So let's get over that little bromide,
can't we?

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Jesus established one church, not many Orthodox churches.

He established one faith, the apostles and those they taught established
local churches throughout the world all believing one faith. It was the
Church that established how order would be maintained throughout the
Church. There are not many Orthodox Catholic Churches, there is the
Orthodox Catholic Church in various geographical areas in the world,
however. Order within those areas was determined by the Church.

> Think again about who it is who has turned from the guidance of the
> Holy Spirit.

You are welcome. Rome did that when it opted for a new kind of
Christianity, papal Christianity. That is why Rome is in effect the first
"protestant" church.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> They would have called a synod, and have had the synod do the judging.

Who says? That is what Roman Catholic "historians" would want you to
think, but that, of course, was not the case. There were many exchanges
between bishops that served to correct errant views or opinions.

> But Clement didn't do that ...he said, straighten out under pain of sin
> ...that is pretty authoritative to me.
>
> ANd guess what ...the Corinthians accepted it, and were still reading
> Clem' s letter at Mass 150 years later.

St. Clement's letter was accepted because it was true. That he later
became a bishop of Rome was and is besides the case.

> >> >> As I said, the idea that Rome was the capital was not advanced to
> >> >> justify the primacy until much later.
> >> >
> >> >By Rome perhaps, but it was a factor from the beginning.
> >>
> >> The factor was that Peter and Paul died there.
> >
> >Which made it a site for pilgrimages, not much else.
>
> Irenaeus speaks of Rome as being the source of teaching and unity.

Yes, but he was writing to dissenters within Rome who were going contrary
to the teachings of the bishop of Rome. St. Irenaeus was giving support to
the bishop of Rome, not anything more than that. Don't you know why he
wrote the letter? I guess not. Another example of Roman Catholic proof
texting to try to prove what wasn't.

> >> Again, you have never served in the military. What the legates
> thought
> >> counts for nothing.
> >
> >And you have never lived in a democracy where there is no dictator.
>
> Well, I live in the USA; that is a country that you are probably not
> familiar with.

Which is interesting that you accept a dictatorship form of government for
your church.

> >While the legates do not equal the person, the legates found nothing
> wrong
> >with raising Constantinople in rank, and encouraged the bishop of Rome
> to
> >go along. The problem that the bishop of Rome had was that it upset the
>
> >prior idea of apostolic sees having a leadership position within the
> >Church. Some of that may have been to protect his turf, which is what
> it
> >later appears to be the case since that canon was accepted once Rome
> >established a competing Latin patriarch in Constantinople.
>
> Well, that was 900 years later.

No, it was only when the bishop of Rome appointed "Latin" patriarchs to
attempt to divide the Church.

> Actually, I think that canon was accepted in the 9th cent.
>
> Besides, the Bishop of Byzantium wanted to be 2nd in precedence after
> Rome solely because of his political influence, not because of anything
> else.

It was New Rome. Did the Church have the right to make the bishop
second? Yes. Which doesn't say if it was right or wrong. Only that it
had the right and it did.

> >> >Which means that you don't believe in a collegial episcopacy nor a

> >> >collegial primacy but the same dictatorship that the Roman Catholic
> Church

> >> >has today. Fine. Just be clear about it.
> >>
> >> Well, somebody has to be in charge!
> >
> >Something that one would make only if they denied the promise that
> Christ
> >made to His Church.
>
> Well, while we rely on Christ, we do have to act, don't we? Do you
> think that all we have to do is to stand around and say, "God will
> provide"? Nobody does that.

You could trust in Christ and in His promise. We do.

> >> Well, we still have to have visible leadership, because we are still
> >> visible people.
> >
> >Which is why the office of Bishop was established.
>

> ANd we have to have a symbol of unity in the church, not a cacophony of
> discord ...hence, Jesus established the primacy of Peter.

But again, you had to establish it to resolve the cacophony of discord that
the Roman Catholic Church suffered from after she left the Church. And the
cacophony of discord that you still have. We don't have that problem.
Again we have Christ's promise.

> Read the NT, you will see it at work there.

The New Testament is the guide that we use. The Roman Catholic Church
should spend some time reading it sometime to guide her back to the truth
which is Christ.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

AgThorn wrote:

> I don't put it forth as any sort of proof text on the Baptist church (in
> fact neither did the source I got it from but he was accused of doing as
> much) ...

I did not mean to imply that. I have seen the whole document and it is not true to any history.

> the point is that individual churches, that believed in Jesus
> Christ and adult baptism (not organized in any denominational sense) DID
> exist ....

There were many beliefs that surfaced over the centuries. That is why there were Ecumenical Councils. They met
to discuss these new beliefs and to decide what the right belief was. There were a whole host of individual
beliefs that some folks came up with, most simply died out when shown to be wrong - not by the whole Church but
by the individual Churches within which those errant thoughts arose.

These were not "individual churches" but perhaps individual parishes within the Church or individual priests (or
even bishops) within the Church.

There was no formal "catechism" that existed, as we are used to today. There was no set of books that everyone
could go to. There were Apostolic Canons, there were some selected epistles and "books" that did exist. Just
because someone somewhere thought something that differed from what the Church thought, however, does not make it
right, apostolic, historic or whatever.

> not to be confused with what we "officially" call "Baptist"
> today ... my only point in putting it forth was to point out that even
> Trent acknowledged that there were persecuted Christians outside of the
> Roman fold as far back and before Constantine made Christianity legit ...

Please, let's add all of them. The Gnostics, for example, existed before. Were they right? Just because some
folks got things wrong early on (let's also remember why St. Paul wrote so many of his Epistles, they were to
correct wrong ideas), does the existence of those practices justify them somehow? I do not think so.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> You know, you don't know your history.

Let's see.

> If the Eastern Church refused to recognize Petrine supremacy, why then
> did they submit their disputes to Rome for adjudication?

"Petrine supremacy"? No that was not the factor. All bishops were "of
Peter", all bishops were therefore what the bishop of Rome was. Nor were
all disputes required to go to Rome. Rome was in the west which was viewed
as a neutral party in some disputes, and it was an apostolic church and it
was of great size. But then again, the final arbitrator was the Council
which could over turn anything that the bishop of Rome decided.

> I will answer that for you: because they recognized the primacy of
> Peter and his successors in office.

Which meant that they did not recognize what they, themselves, had? I
doubt it.

So again, we have shown how unreliable Roman Catholic history is.

Evan

[Padraic42]

In article <34765b34...@news2.ibm.net>, wds@*pobox.com (AgThorn) writes:

>eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>Of course, what I should have
>said is that the pope is the head of the
>visible church on earth, as the
>stand in for Jesus until he come again.

There is NO "stand in" for Jesus
>Christ. He is THE Mediator, THE High
Priest, THE MOst High, THE Lord on
>High, THE King of Kings, THE Redeemer.

Well we know 'you' certianly aren't. And nowhere in Catholic teaching does
it say that Christ ISN'T THE Mediator, and THE High Priest, etc....

But then again, you're an expert on what you 'think' is Catholic teaching.

You and Nick, and Evan, and DW, and Amigo and every other anti-catholic know
nothing.

[AgThorn]

padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:

>In article <3471A7C9...@webspan.net>, Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
>writes:
>

>>I am Catholic.
>
>And if Evan is a Catholic, then I'm a martian.

Many of us have known that all along ... but it has been with "grace" that
we have allowed you to come this discovery on your own!! ;-)

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> And if Evan is a Catholic, then I'm a martian.

So AOL now has martian nodes?

Evan

[AgThorn]

Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

>Be a bit careful when looking at a very small minority and trying to project that
>to the entire Roman Catholic Church. That said, be also careful when you fail to
>see anyone correct those small minorities.

Absolutely .... I only wish to once see such correction ...

[AgThorn]

Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

>AgThorn wrote:
>
>> I don't put it forth as any sort of proof text on the Baptist church (in
>> fact neither did the source I got it from but he was accused of doing as
>> much) ...
>
>I did not mean to imply that. I have seen the whole document and it is not true to any history.

I would be most interested in seeing this document ... are you implying
that the alledged statement was NOT made at Trent? or are you just
questing the context that the statement is being used in?

>> the point is that individual churches, that believed in Jesus
>> Christ and adult baptism (not organized in any denominational sense) DID
>> exist ....
>
>There were many beliefs that surfaced over the centuries. That is why there
>were Ecumenical Councils. They met to discuss these new beliefs and to decide
>what the right belief was. There were a whole host of individual beliefs that
>some folks came up with, most simply died out when shown to be wrong - not by
>the whole Church but by the individual Churches within which those errant
>thoughts arose.

But this does not address the alledged fact ... i.e. that there were
"baptists" (not in the modern day denominational sense) that believed as
the Anabaptists did, zelously subscribing to adult baptism's as the "true"
baptism.

>These were not "individual churches" but perhaps individual parishes within
>the Church or individual priests (or even bishops) within the Church.

This assumes that all "churches" were tied to a mother church ... the Irish
before Rome sent her monks are a perfect example of this not being the
case.

>There was no formal "catechism" that existed, as we are used to today. There was
>no set of books that everyone could go to. There were Apostolic Canons, there
>were some selected epistles and "books" that did exist. Just because someone >somewhere thought something that differed from what the Church thought, however,
>does not make it right, apostolic, historic or whatever.

A valid statement, no argument there ... but just because the "Church" is
old does also not mean that it was in touch with every "christian" nor
contained every "christian church" ... i.e. the trouble I am having is
twofold,

1) There seems to be a "need" to say that all the churches were united in
one uniform way of belief, worship, etc. That is really prepostorous to
even imagine back then when it took months to just get a letter somewhere,
especially looking at our dissimilarities (even within the Orthodox or
Roman churchs) today when we can communicate in a nanosecond ..

2) That anyone that was NOT part of some overall organizated "Church"
structure must have been heretical ... i.e. otherwise they would have
joined ... another silly assumption.

>> not to be confused with what we "officially" call "Baptist"
>> today ... my only point in putting it forth was to point out that even
>> Trent acknowledged that there were persecuted Christians outside of the
>> Roman fold as far back and before Constantine made Christianity legit ...
>
>Please, let's add all of them. The Gnostics, for example, existed before.
>Were they right? Just because some folks got things wrong early on (let's
>also remember why St. Paul wrote so many of his Epistles, they were to
>correct wrong ideas), does the existence of those practices justify them somehow? I do not think so.

I rest my case .... i.e. if there are so called "christians" in the early
centuries that were NOT part of the "super-church", they must have been
heretics .... Why make such a comparison to the Gnostics? Why is it so
hard to accept that there were not other churches that just did not want to
be part of the "mother church" that were not heretical? (as the quote from
Trent seems to indicate, and as the Irish example seems to also
historically support).

In Jesus Name,
Bill

[Edward Thorne]

In <34759268...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

But, who said that they weren't?

"I hate men of divided heart, but I love your law."

Ed

[Edward Thorne]

In <34759118...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> In <3470553F...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik
<kal...@webspan.net>
>> writes:
>> >
>> >Mike Davidchik wrote:
>> >
>> >> Peter and Paul did go to Rome to establish the Christian Church
>> there.
>> >
>> >Just as they went elsewhere to establish the Christian Church
there.
>> >
>> >> This was the "seed" that later converted most of Europe.
>> >
>> >Just as all of the other apostolic sees were the "seed" that later
>> converted
>> >the areas in which they found themselves.
>> >
>> >> The special status of Rome was obvious to Christians even in the
>> first three
>> >> centuries
>> >> (read Eusebius).
>> >
>> >Please do.
>>
>> No, he was speaking to you. YOU read Eusebius.
>

>I have, and not just some proof texts that the Roman Catholic Church

likes
>to use to prove her case (regardless of the context within which it
was
>written). If you were to read all of what he wrote you would realize

how
>unreliable Roman Catholic history is.

What is Eusebius that shows the unreliability or Roman Catholic
history. Since I don't have my Eccl Hist handy, and none of his other
works, please provide a quotation or two, and show where specifically
the church's history is 'unreliable.'

>
>> The pope is the head of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic
>> church, the one founded by Jesus.
>
>Yes, that fairly describes Alexandria. It used to also describe the
bishop
>of Rome. It is too bad it no longer does.

Well, the head of the Catholic church was never in Alexandria.

>
>> As the pope of Rome is the symbol of unity in the church, those
bishops
>> who are in communion with him are united to the body of Christ, the
>> true vine.
>
>No, they are simply in communion with the heretical Roman Catholic
Church.

IZZ TOO!

Can you give some particulars about the alleged heresy of the Catholic
church, headquartered in Rome? Please provide specific facts.

I am trying to do some reading on the history of the EO church, and why
it went into schism, but our benighted public library system has
nothing on it, and I have to settle for inter library loans, and that
gives me only a month to read thick and densely written tomes, which is
a frustratating exercise. Many souls were released from Purgatory as I
tried to read Dvornik's book The Photian Schism. I could not finish it
in the month alloted to me.

>
>> Those that are not are in schism, and I pray that they will return
to
>> the true fold --they and their members --as soon as possible.
>
>We have left a light on for those who have left the Church over the
>centuries. It is hopeful that one day all, including the Roman
Catholics,
>will give up their wrong beliefs and return to the Church.
>
>Evan
>

Of course, it is amply clear that while the various EO churches have
true hierarchy and true sacraments, they are not based on the model of
unity of the early church, as Jesus intended it to be.

[Edward Thorne]

In <34759AD9...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> You know, you don't know your history.
>
>Let's see.
>
>> If the Eastern Church refused to recognize Petrine supremacy, why
then
>> did they submit their disputes to Rome for adjudication?
>
>"Petrine supremacy"? No that was not the factor. All bishops were
"of
>Peter",

No, because Peter died only in Rome.

all bishops were therefore what the bishop of Rome was. Nor were
>all disputes required to go to Rome. Rome was in the west which was
viewed
>as a neutral party in some disputes, and it was an apostolic church
and it
>was of great size. But then again, the final arbitrator was the
Council
>which could over turn anything that the bishop of Rome decided.

But, I don't know of any disputes that were decided by the bishop or
Rome and overturned by a council --disputes within the patriarchate.

>
>> I will answer that for you: because they recognized the primacy of
>> Peter and his successors in office.
>
>Which meant that they did not recognize what they, themselves, had? I
>doubt it.

Well, doubt it if you will, but the record speaks otherwise.

>
>So again, we have shown how unreliable Roman Catholic history is.

"Let's take a look at the record!" --The Happy Warrior.

"I hate men of divided heart, but I love your law."

Ed
>
>Evan
>

[Edward Thorne]

In <347597A0...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> No, there are those who have left the church, and are on the outside
>> looking in. These are the EOs, and they have chosen to be in schism
>> ever since they repudiated the council of Florence.
>

>Which only goes to show how unreliable Roman Catholic "history" is.

Do you mean that the EO accepted the council of Florence?

>
>> But, there is no single EO church. There is one in Byznatium, one
in
>> Kiev, one in Moscow, Sofia, Bucharest, Belgrade, and recent
>> establishments in the Middle East and elsewhere.
>
>There never was "one" Orthodox Catholic Church. There was one in
Corinth,
>there was one in Jerusalem, there was one in Crete, there was one in
>Alexandria, there was one in Rome, there was one in Antioch, there was
one
>in Constantinople, etc. That said, however, there was one Orthodox
>Catholic Faith that was believed and practiced in all of those local
>churches. The Church was the bishop and his flock, as one of the
fathers
>said.

The church is one, not a federation of churches. Acts tells us that.

>
>> It is the same Church that existed from the time of
>> >Christ, the same Church that Rome used to belong to.
>>
>> Well, the EO church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ.
>
>The Orthodox Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
It is
>the very same Church that the Roman Catholic Church left almost a
thousand
>years ago so she could practice papal Christianity.

Then why did the Patriarchs submit appeals to Rome and accept Roman
decisions? They did that from their foundation to 1054.

>
>> >Your need for a visible head is due to the erroneous Roman Catholic
>> Church's
>> >belief that somehow Christ is missing from the Church.
>>
>> Christ is not missing! What in the dickens ever gave you that
silly
>> idea?
>
>Why else would you have a "vicar".

Any bishop is a vicar of CHrist.

>
>> The bishop of Rome has always been the sign of unity and the head of
>> the church.
>
>Within Rome, within the geographical area that the Church granted the
>bishop of Rome, which was clearly defined and did not extend beyond
his
>diocese nor co-existed with any other bishop.

Well, if you refuse to recognize the unity of the church as reflected
in the bishop of Rome, as you alluded to above, then how can the church
be said to exist now?

If the unity of the Church resides in Peter and in his successors, and
then it no longer does so, then how can the church be said to be one?

>
>> >As for teaching authority, we have Holy Tradition and we have
bishops,
>> as we have
>> >had bishops since they were consecrated by the Apostles.
>>
>> But, what good are the bishops? You have repudiated even your own
>> bishops, which goes to show that you are obstinate in your schism.
>
>I beg your pardon? Where did I do that?

When you repudiated your bishops at Florence.

>
>> > We also don't feel the
>> >need to create new revelation since that was done once, by Christ.
>>
>> Well, we don't do that!
>
>You did. Created Grace, papal infallibility, etc., are all new
>"revelations". I guess what Christ gave us just wasn't enough to
support
>Papal Christianity.

You don't beleive in grace? Not in holiness? Not in God's helps? You
believe in the possibility of error? After all, we know that even
bishops, many bishops, can break from the church and teach erroneous
doctrines.

>
>> >> BTW, I've asked it before. Who infallably said that only 7
Councils
>> >> were necessary?
>> >
>> >No one. Thankfully there has been no reason to have another
council
>> similar to
>> >the first seven.
>>
>> Maybe that is because there is no more emperor to call one.
>
>A non-answer.

No, the EO beleives that only an emperor can call a general council.

>
>> >BTW, are you ever going to answer my question? I guess not. It
does
>> answer how
>> >reliable Roman Catholic History is, which is not very reliable at
all.
>
>> It was you that started that thread?
>
>No. But my question asks the same question.

Well, repeat the question, please, and stop belly-aching!

>
>> Well, since you repudiate your own bishops, and since you
selectively
>> cite the fathers, and come up with fanciful histories as to when
they
>> exercised their office, and since you repudiate scripture, it is
easy
>> to see that the response you gave above has no merit of its own; it
is
>> utterly worthless.
>
>Excuse me, but that is the comment that I have made about Roman
Catholic
>"history" over and over. One that you and the rest have yet to
disprove.

Well, please be specific as to alleged unreliable history.

[SNIP]

[Edward Thorne]

In <347599A6...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> Jesus established one church, not many Orthodox churches.
>
>He established one faith, the apostles and those they taught
established
>local churches throughout the world all believing one faith.

That isn't what the book of Acts tells us.

That is why I think that you must have been a Protestant who converted
to the AOC ...is that the Antiochian Orthodox Church?

> It was the
>Church that established how order would be maintained throughout the
>Church. There are not many Orthodox Catholic Churches, there is the
>Orthodox Catholic Church in various geographical areas in the world,
>however. Order within those areas was determined by the Church.

No, you a dealing with separated national churches. For example, the
Ukrainian and Russian orthodox churches are quarreling over church
property in the Ukraine.

[AgThorn]

eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>But, I don't know of any disputes that were decided by the bishop or
>Rome and overturned by a council --disputes within the patriarchate.

Although a bit off the subject, but relatted to the subject line, this
reminds me of our earlier discussion on the forged "Donation of
Constantine". I believe it was you, Ed, that referred to this as the
"false Decretals?". (spelling?)

In reading more about this part of "man made" history, apparently there are
two distinct forgeries, the "Donation" which once finally accepted led to a
reversal of large land holdings of the vatican in Italy, returned to the
country in 1870 I believe. Where the "Isidorian Decretals" were apparently
a ninth century creation. The following background was educational:

by Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity, Chapter 6, "The Church Forgery
Mill"

<quote> These spurious documents are taken up seriatim by the critical
Father Dupin, as outlined in ANF., viii, and each in its turn pronounced a
forgery. From the "Introductory Notice to the Decretals," I think it
pertinent to quote the following paragraph:

"These frauds, which, pretending to be a series of 'papal
edicts' from Clement and his successors during the ante-Niccne
ages, are, in fact, the manufactured product of the ninth
century, -- the most stupendous imposture of the world's
history, the most successful and the most stubborn in its hold
upon enlightened nations. Like the mason's framework of lath
and scantlings, on which he turns an arch of massive stone,
the Decretals served their purpose, enabling Nicholas I to
found the Papacy by their insignificant aid. That swelling
arch of vanity once reared, the framework might be knocked
out; but the fabric stood, and has borne up every weight
imposed upon it for ages. Its strong abutments have been
ignorance and despotism. Nicholas produced his flimsy
framework of imposture, and amazed the whole Church by the
audacity of the claims he founded upon it. The age, however,
was unlearned and uncritical; and, in spite of remonstrances
from France under lead of Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, the West
patiently submitted to the overthrow of the ancient Canons and
the Nicene Constitutions, and bowed to the yoke of a new canon
law, of which these frauds were not only made an integral, but
the essential, part. The East never accepted them for a
moment. ... The Papacy created the Western schism, and
contrived to call it 'the schism of the Greeks.' The Decretals
had created the Papacy, and they enabled the first Pope to
assume that communion with himself was the test of Catholic
communion: hence his excommunication of the Easterns, which,
after brief intervals of relaxation, settled into the chronic
schism of the Papacy, and produced the awful history of the
medieval Church in Western Europe." (ANF. viii, 601.)
<unquote>

Where the Donation of Constantine simply was a large land grab, seems that
the whole papal foundation was based on another whole batch of forgeries.

[Edward Thorne]

In <347591EE...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

>
>AgThorn wrote:
>
>> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>>

>> >Of course, what I should have said is that the pope is the head of
the

>> >visible church on earth, as the stand in for Jesus until he come
again.
>>
>> There is NO "stand in" for Jesus Christ. He is THE Mediator, THE
High
>> Priest, THE MOst High, THE Lord on High, THE King of Kings, THE
Redeemer.
>

>The point that you are missing is that for Roman Catholics, Christ is
somehow absent from the Church.
>Therefore they need a fill in or a replacement for the absent Christ.

Well, what do you think that the bishops are? They too are stand ins
for Christ.

[Edward Thorne]

In <34765b34...@news2.ibm.net> wds@*pobox.com (AgThorn) writes:
>
>eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
>>Of course, what I should have said is that the pope is the head of
the
>>visible church on earth, as the stand in for Jesus until he come
again.
>
>There is NO "stand in" for Jesus Christ. He is THE Mediator, THE High
>Priest, THE MOst High, THE Lord on High, THE King of Kings, THE
Redeemer.

Well, Bill, Jesus went to heaven, and left the apostles behind, If
they didn't act as stand ins, then what were they doing?

>
>It is so sad to see how easy "stand in's" can lead us to idolotry.

I don't see that all. There is no logic in your statement.

I found
>a traditionalist web page that had a picture of John Paul II on it and
they
>called him "Lord God the Pope" .... very tragic ....

"Traditionalist" you call it? I don't think that any true
'traditionalist' would call the pope Lord God.

Maybe they were being sarcastic, not liking the pope. There are many
people who call themselves Catholic and Traditionalist but who are
really outside the church. Lefebvreists are a good example.

Maybe the web page was created by an 'agent provocateur', a person who
is in no way a Catholic, but has styled himself one to lead good and
sincere people, like yourself, Bill, astray by scandalizing them.

[Edward Thorne]

In <34758F5F...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:

What you have said here reveals one who is filled with ignorance and
rank prejudice.

Evan so little understands the teaching of the church on infallibility,
that one wonders if he has ever read anything authoritative about it.
That leaves him to distort it and twist it and to utter all kinds of
calumnies about it and the church. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

I refer him to Butler's The Vatican Council. He will get some
enlightenment there.

[Edward Thorne]

In <19971120235...@ladder02.news.aol.com> bam11...@aol.com
(BAM1106016) writes:
>
>Doubter asks:
>
>>Would you mind justifying what seems to be, on the face of it, a
spiteful
>>comment.
>>
>>
>
>Yes I would; I've been reading Evan's posts for a long time, and
you'll have to
>take my word for it.
>
>BAM

Well, I second that.

We should let doubter use the theif's rope principle: the more he
reads of Evan's posts, the more he will understand.

We don't need to be on the defensive when someone thinks that we have
been unjustifiably harsh with Evan.

Probably the best way to handle Evan is to ignore his posts; then he
will probably get bored and go to another newsgroup. :-)

[AgThorn]

eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>Probably the best way to handle Evan is to ignore his posts; then he
>will probably get bored and go to another newsgroup. :-)

Ah, another topical opportunity for a favorite anonymous short story ....

Does anyone recognize yourself in this piece?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

When I first became a member of the church,my circle was very big...
for it included all who,like myself,had believed and been baptized.
I was happy in the thought that my brethren were many...but,having
a keen and observant mind,I soon learned that many of my brethren
were erring. I could not tolerate any people within my circle but
those who,like myself,were RIGHT on all points of doctrine and
practice.Too,some made mistakes and sinned! what could I do?

I HAD to do something! I drew my circle,placing myself and a few as
righteous as I within,and the others without. I soon observed that
some within my circle were self-righteous,unforgiving,jealous and
proud,so in righteous indignation,I drew my circle again,leaving
the publicans and sinners outside,excluding the Pharisees in all
their pride,with myself and the righteous and humble within.I heard
ugly rumors about some brethren. I saw then that some of them were
worldly minded;their thoughts were constantly on things of a worldly
nature;they drank coffee,when,like me,they should drink tea.

So,duty bound,to save my reputation,my circle I drew again,leaving
those reputable,spiritually minded within.I soon realized in time
that only my family and I remained in the circle.I had a good family,
but to my surprise my family finally disagreed with me. I was always
right! A man must be steadfast! I have never been factious! So in
strong determination,I drew my circle again,leaving me quite alone.
_Author unknown

[Mike Davidchik]

In article <3476eec...@news2.ibm.net>, wds@*pobox.com wrote:

>
> by Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity, Chapter 6, "The Church Forgery
> Mill"
>
> <quote> These spurious documents are taken up seriatim by the critical
> Father Dupin, as outlined in ANF., viii, and each in its turn pronounced a
> forgery. From the "Introductory Notice to the Decretals," I think it

> pertinent to quote the following paragraph: snip snip

The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals have been recognized to contain some forgeries
by the Catholic Church for many centuries. Written by a Frankish Bishop
in 850, it is a mixture of forged and authentic documents. It was used by
Pope Nicholas I to raise the papacy to the position of absolute control of
the Church. But,
this status is not solely justified on the basis of the Decretals.

You should discuss what was going on in Christianity (Catholicism) at the time.
With the breakup of the Roman Empire, various secular princes were trying
to take over control of the Church.

Mike

[AgThorn]

eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>In <34765b34...@news2.ibm.net> wds@*pobox.com (AgThorn) writes:
>>eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:

>>>Of course, what I should have said is that the pope is the head of
>>>the visible church on earth, as the stand in for Jesus until he
>>>come again.

>>There is NO "stand in" for Jesus Christ. He is THE Mediator, THE High
>>Priest, THE MOst High, THE Lord on High, THE King of Kings, THE
>>Redeemer.

>Well, Bill, Jesus went to heaven, and left the apostles behind,

Using your analogy (not that one should ever look at the Apostles as "stand
in's" for Jesus either, but for discussion sake ..) The "key" is "THE" ...
NOT "one" .... quite a big difference when we put ONE at the top of our
church, versus THE Apostles .... not the same thing at all ....

>If they didn't act as stand ins, then what were they doing?

They were teaching, preaching and leading others TO Jesus .... NOT standing
in FOR Jesus .... Jesus is still with us, that is what makes our faith
unique.

>>It is so sad to see how easy "stand in's" can lead us to idolotry.

>I don't see that all. There is no logic in your statement.

I can understand your response ...

>>I found a traditionalist web page that had a picture of John
>>Paul II on it and they called him "Lord God the Pope" ....
>>very tragic ....

>"Traditionalist" you call it? I don't think that any true
>'traditionalist' would call the pope Lord God.

>Maybe they were being sarcastic, not liking the pope. There are many
>people who call themselves Catholic and Traditionalist but who are
>really outside the church. Lefebvreists are a good example.

Ed, that is just being down right ignorant of this title being used through
the ages by Catholics .... and it would NOT be used if the Vatican did not
encourage it .... here are a few references:

The following extracts are from authoritative works by Catholic dignitaries
concerning the title and position of their leader:

"All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture,
implying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed
to the Pope." Bellamin, "On the authority of Councils,"
book 2, Chapter 17.

"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art
the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art an-
other God on earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the
Councils," Vol.XIV, col.109.

For the title "Lord God the Pope," see a gloss on the "Extra-
vagantes" of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4, "Declaramus"

In an Antwerp edition of the "Extravagantes", the words
"Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam," (Our Lord God the Pope) occur
in column 153. In a Paris edition, they occur in column 140.

"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of
heaven, and earth, and purgatory." Prompta Bibliotheca, by
Feraris, Vol.VI, p.26, article "Papa."

In a passage which is included in the Roman Catholic Canon
Law, Pope Innocent III declares that the Roman pontiff is
"the vicegerent upon earth, not mere man, but of very God;"
and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is
because he is the vicegerent of Christ, Who is "very God
and very man." See Decretales Domini Gregorii Papae IX,
(Decretals of the Lord Pope Gregory IX), liberi de trans-
latione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops),
title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed,
1881), col.99; (Paris, 1612), tom.2, Decretales, col.205.

>Maybe the web page was created by an 'agent provocateur', a person who
>is in no way a Catholic, but has styled himself one to lead good and
>sincere people, like yourself, Bill, astray by scandalizing them.

Hardly, Ed .... I only "scandalize" that which "scandalizes" or attempts to
come between, whether intentionally or unintentionally, a believer and our
Savior.

In Jesus Name,
Bill

[RobinOak]

AgThorn wrote:

snip

> Where the Donation of Constantine simply was a large land grab, seems that
> the whole papal foundation was based on another whole batch of forgeries.
>
> Bill

But AgThorn, this church is verrry ollllld. <s> And this very old church
was run by a lot of humans.

So I find none of this sort of thing surprising, nor particularly
upsetting--as *long* as people don't try to lie about it all now, or to
whitewash it. *That's* when I get riled, when the past is whitewashed or
denied, here in the present....

God is perfect and pure. His followers weren't, and aren't. <s>

If for instance, NewAgey groups like "The Church of Cosmic Uncertainty"
<I saw that somewhere, don't know if it's real...> manages to stick
around for another 2,000 years, we will surely find weirdnesses, lies,
coverups, and gads, perhaps even witchburnings and religious wars.

Human beings are like that. I don't see what the past has to do with the
value of this institution in present, as long as we don't whitewash now,
what did in fact happen in the past..... it's called 'admitting one's
mistakes,' and asking forgiveness...

[AgThorn]

RobinOak <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:

>AgThorn wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> Where the Donation of Constantine simply was a large land grab, seems that
>> the whole papal foundation was based on another whole batch of forgeries.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
>But AgThorn, this church is verrry ollllld. <s> And this very old church
>was run by a lot of humans.

Absolutely ..... but then there should be a public disavowal of all these
documents somewhere ... not saying that there isn't one, just that I don't
know of it .. I will be the first to see "no sin" once reconciled ... just
as we were trained in catholic school in our youth ... that the only sins
that the angels see are the ones that we have not confessed ...

>So I find none of this sort of thing surprising, nor particularly
>upsetting--as *long* as people don't try to lie about it all now, or to
>whitewash it. *That's* when I get riled, when the past is whitewashed or
>denied, here in the present....

Amen ... and there are those, even here on this newsgroup, that will do
that very thing .... and to be fair, there is too much "blackwashing" on
Rome by fundy's as well ... I guess one creates the other and vica-versa.

>God is perfect and pure. His followers weren't, and aren't. <s>

And never will be !! ;-)

>If for instance, NewAgey groups like "The Church of Cosmic Uncertainty"
><I saw that somewhere, don't know if it's real...> manages to stick
>around for another 2,000 years, we will surely find weirdnesses, lies,
>coverups, and gads, perhaps even witchburnings and religious wars.

>Human beings are like that. I don't see what the past has to do with the
>value of this institution in present, as long as we don't whitewash now,
>what did in fact happen in the past..... it's called 'admitting one's
>mistakes,' and asking forgiveness...

No argument there!!!

[RobinOak]

AgThorn wrote:

> RobinOak <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >AgThorn wrote:
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> Where the Donation of Constantine simply was a large land grab, seems that
> >> the whole papal foundation was based on another whole batch of forgeries.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> >
> >But AgThorn, this church is verrry ollllld. <s> And this very old church
> >was run by a lot of humans.
>
> Absolutely ..... but then there should be a public disavowal of all these
> documents somewhere ...

Agreed!! Totally. <still waiting for some official word on those Burning
Time unpleasantries...>

> not saying that there isn't one, just that I don't
> know of it .. I will be the first to see "no sin" once reconciled ... just
> as we were trained in catholic school in our youth ... that the only sins
> that the angels see are the ones that we have not confessed ...

Agreed.

> >So I find none of this sort of thing surprising, nor particularly
> >upsetting--as *long* as people don't try to lie about it all now, or to
> >whitewash it. *That's* when I get riled, when the past is whitewashed or
> >denied, here in the present....

> Amen ... and there are those, even here on this newsgroup, that will do
> that very thing .... and to be fair, there is too much "blackwashing" on
> Rome by fundy's as well ... I guess one creates the other and vica-versa.

I see the same thing. And that's when I get testy. But this NG is not
the Church. <bg> <thank heaven...>

> >God is perfect and pure. His followers weren't, and aren't. <s>
>
> And never will be !! ;-)

Yep. But we keep on slogging away anyhow... <slogging is better than not
slogging...>

> >If for instance, NewAgey groups like "The Church of Cosmic Uncertainty"
> ><I saw that somewhere, don't know if it's real...> manages to stick
> >around for another 2,000 years, we will surely find weirdnesses, lies,
> >coverups, and gads, perhaps even witchburnings and religious wars.
> >
> >Human beings are like that. I don't see what the past has to do with the
> >value of this institution in present, as long as we don't whitewash now,
> >what did in fact happen in the past..... it's called 'admitting one's
> >mistakes,' and asking forgiveness...

> No argument there!!!

Yep.

There are a few who make it all worthwhile, though. Here as in the
larger institution. :)

Wheat and chaff. As always. ;-)

[Timothy Consodine]

AgThorn wrote in message <3479401c...@news2.ibm.net>...

>The following extracts are from authoritative works by Catholic dignitaries
>concerning the title and position of their leader:

Horse manure. What we have here is just another half-assed attempt of
"scholarship" by some anti-Catholic idiot who surgically isolates words and
phrases from documents and twists them to get them to mean what he wants
them to mean. (Probably the same crowd who read Jack Chick's comic books.)

Why is it that there have been 21 ecumenical councils in the last 1700
years - and not once is there any semblance of anything you described?

Go get a clue.

> "All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture,
> implying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed
> to the Pope." Bellamin, "On the authority of Councils,"
> book 2, Chapter 17.

How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

> "For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art
> the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art an-
> other God on earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the
> Councils," Vol.XIV, col.109.

How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

> For the title "Lord God the Pope," see a gloss on the "Extra-
> vagantes" of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4, "Declaramus"

How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

> In an Antwerp edition of the "Extravagantes", the words
> "Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam," (Our Lord God the Pope) occur
> in column 153. In a Paris edition, they occur in column 140.

How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

> "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of
> heaven, and earth, and purgatory." Prompta Bibliotheca, by
> Feraris, Vol.VI, p.26, article "Papa."

How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

> In a passage which is included in the Roman Catholic Canon
> Law, Pope Innocent III declares that the Roman pontiff is
> "the vicegerent upon earth, not mere man, but of very God;"
> and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is
> because he is the vicegerent of Christ, Who is "very God
> and very man." See Decretales Domini Gregorii Papae IX,
> (Decretals of the Lord Pope Gregory IX), liberi de trans-
> latione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops),
> title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed,
> 1881), col.99; (Paris, 1612), tom.2, Decretales, col.205.

How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/

[Edward Thorne]

In <3475940D...@webspan.net> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net>
writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> Remember, it was the Greek church that repudiated the Council of
>> FLorence.
>
>No, it was the Church that rejected it. And if Rome was still
following
>the same beliefs that existed at the time of the first seven
Ecumenical
>councils, she also would recognize that it was the Church that
rejected it.

The bishops passed the canons of the COuncil, and they were approved by
the pope [I presume], and that made them of universal effect.

You can't turn your back on a general council because you don't like
it! That is what the Arians did!

That they were repudiated by the Greeks is beyond cavil.
>
>> >> >> Secondly, the break from the Catholic Church by his
"orthodox"
>> church, was
>> >> >> a minority action.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Roman Catholic Church left the Catholic Church. Let's see,
you
>> have the
>> >> >bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church had the bishop of
>> Constantinople, the
>> >> >bishop of Antioch,
>> >>
>> >> Which bp of Antioch do you have in mind?
>> >
>> >What other one was there?
>>
>> ...Nestorian, Jacobite ...
>
>Were they involved? No. So why mention them?

Was there an EO bishop of Antioch in 1054?
>
>> >> the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Crete, the Bishop of
>> >> Alexandria,
>> >>
>> >> The Coptic bishop of Alexandria?
>> >
>> >Don't you know history? I guess not.
>>
>> The Coptic bishop of Alexandria is the one occupying St Mark's
seat.
>
>Again, don't you know history? Were the Copts involved? No.

I don't think that there were any EO bishops of Alexandria until modern
times.
>
>> >> Remember, the church early accepted the idea that appeals were to
made
>>
>> >> from the dioceses to Rome.
>> >
>> >If they did not want to go elsewhere.
>>
>> There is no place else to go.
>
>They also settled things amongst themselves or between themselves. So
>there were other places to go.

Not as to a supreme arbiter.

Get real, Evan, disputes in the East were appealed to the pope of Rome.
It was the usual practice.
>
>> And as we all know, as St. Augustine
>> >said, if you are unhappy with what you hear at Rome, ask for an
>> Ecumenical
>> >Council to decide.
>>
>> That is because it would side with the pope.
>
>Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. The key is that the highest appeal
was
>to the Church and not to the bishop of Rome.

That is not what the councils say.
>
>> >> 1st among equals means merely 1st ceremoniously.It conveys no
meaning
>> >> of authority whatsoever.
>> >
>> >Exactly, and that was the position that the bishop of Rome had
within
>> the
>> >Church.
>> >
>>
>> Tell that to ol' Clement! :-)
>
>He would agree. Remember he wasn't even a bishop of Rome when he
wrote his
>famous epistle.
>
I think that you are the only person in the Western Hemisphere, the
Northern Hemisphere, and in the whole civilized world, who believes
that error! :-)

Besides, if he were the amenuensis for the bishop of Rome, that would
show that papal primacy was being exercised even earlier than anyone
would have realized.

That goes to show, that Clement as amanuensis, is just as famous as
Thomas Jefferson, who was the amenuensis for the COntintental Congress!

[Stephen Patten]

RobinOak <csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote in article
<347735...@charlotte.infi.net>...

> AgThorn wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Where the Donation of Constantine simply was a large land grab, seems
that
> > the whole papal foundation was based on another whole batch of
forgeries.
> >
> > Bill
>
>
> But AgThorn, this church is verrry ollllld. <s> And this very old church
> was run by a lot of humans.
>

> So I find none of this sort of thing surprising, nor particularly
> upsetting--as *long* as people don't try to lie about it all now, or to
> whitewash it. *That's* when I get riled, when the past is whitewashed or
> denied, here in the present....

To defend the call for the Crusades is not whitewashing. Should Catholics
have allowed the Muslems to slay pilgrims, and allow the holy places to be
destroyed? Was Charles Martel wrong in opposing the forces of Islam at
Poitiers in the 8th century? Were the Catholic princes wrong in trying to
stop the forces of protestantism in the 16th/17th spreading its errors?
More recently Catholics in Spain took up arms against atheistic-socialism;
why was this wrong? Why were the Catholic Mexicans, who opposed by force
of arms the attempted destruction of the Faith in the 1920's, wrong? The
list goes on ... Are you saying that Catholics should have rolled over
and allowed these hostile forces to triumph? Think of the error and
confusion such forces have sown. This confusion concerns the most
important knowledge we need: how to save our souls. What is more
important: to lose one's life or to lose one's soul?

Knights Templars and Hospitallers were counseled to not hate their foes in
battle during the Crusades. Why? Because the Church knew that to hate was
a sin. The Crusades were not called lightly - Islam had been assailing
Christendom for 400 or so years before their call, why in the 9th century
Rome itself was sacked and burned, papal residence included. The Church
knew well the spiritual risks involved: some of those crusading might fall
into mortal sin. It weighed this against the spiritual harm not calling a
Crusade might cause.

Re: The Witch Trials, if I recall correctly, did not most of the burnings
occur in countries were protestants had taken power? Perhaps if
Catholics had not opposed the forces of error during the Thirty Years War
even more would have suffered.

Whitewashing is wrong, but so is the reverse (blackwashing?).

Stephen Patten

>
> God is perfect and pure. His followers weren't, and aren't. <s>
>

[Evan Kalenik]

AgThorn wrote:

> Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:
>
> >Be a bit careful when looking at a very small minority and trying to project that
> >to the entire Roman Catholic Church. That said, be also careful when you fail to
> >see anyone correct those small minorities.
>
> Absolutely .... I only wish to once see such correction ...

Same here. The ones that have, however, have been shunned or attacked by their fellow co-religionists. So
don't expect to see it.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> >The point that you are missing is that for Roman Catholics, Christ is
> somehow absent from the Church.
> >Therefore they need a fill in or a replacement for the absent Christ.
>
> Well, what do you think that the bishops are? They too are stand ins
> for Christ.

So all bishops now are Vicars of Christ? Or the Vicar of Christ?

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Padraic42 wrote:

> You and Nick, and Evan, and DW, and Amigo and every other anti-catholic know
> nothing.

But Pat, how can I be anti-catholic when I am Catholic. Just as you happen to be
Roman Catholic.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> Well, Bill, Jesus went to heaven, and left the apostles behind, If

> they didn't act as stand ins, then what were they doing?

Well, we certainly have expanded things here. Now all the Apostles were
stand-ins for Christ. So they all had successors who were Stand-ins for
Christ, and not just St. Peter.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Timothy Consodine wrote:

> AgThorn wrote in message <3479401c...@news2.ibm.net>...
>
> >The following extracts are from authoritative works by Catholic dignitaries
> >concerning the title and position of their leader:
>
> Horse manure. What we have here is just another half-assed attempt of
> "scholarship" by some anti-Catholic idiot who surgically isolates words and
> phrases from documents and twists them to get them to mean what he wants
> them to mean. (Probably the same crowd who read Jack Chick's comic books.)
>
> Why is it that there have been 21 ecumenical councils in the last 1700
> years - and not once is there any semblance of anything you described?
>
> Go get a clue.
>
> > "All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture,
> > implying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed
> > to the Pope." Bellamin, "On the authority of Councils,"
> > book 2, Chapter 17.
>
> How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Probably for the same reason that you and other Roman Catholic folks don't.

> > "For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art
> > the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art an-
> > other God on earth." Labbe and Cossart's "History of the
> > Councils," Vol.XIV, col.109.
>
> How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Probably for the same reason that you and other Roman Catholic folks don't.

> > For the title "Lord God the Pope," see a gloss on the "Extra-
> > vagantes" of Pope John XXII, title 14, chapter 4, "Declaramus"
>
> How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Probably for the same reason that you and other Roman Catholic folks don't.

> > In an Antwerp edition of the "Extravagantes", the words
> > "Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam," (Our Lord God the Pope) occur
> > in column 153. In a Paris edition, they occur in column 140.
>
> How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Probably for the same reason that you and other Roman Catholic folks don't.

> > "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of
> > heaven, and earth, and purgatory." Prompta Bibliotheca, by
> > Feraris, Vol.VI, p.26, article "Papa."
>
> How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Probably for the same reason that you and other Roman Catholic folks don't.

> > In a passage which is included in the Roman Catholic Canon
> > Law, Pope Innocent III declares that the Roman pontiff is
> > "the vicegerent upon earth, not mere man, but of very God;"
> > and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is
> > because he is the vicegerent of Christ, Who is "very God
> > and very man." See Decretales Domini Gregorii Papae IX,
> > (Decretals of the Lord Pope Gregory IX), liberi de trans-
> > latione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops),
> > title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed,
> > 1881), col.99; (Paris, 1612), tom.2, Decretales, col.205.
>
> How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Probably for the same reason that you and other Roman Catholic folks don't.

You see, Tim, I have asked you the very same question everytime you have
produced your assorted lists of proof texting and you have refused to. Why
should he do what you refuse to do?

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> What is Eusebius that shows the unreliability or Roman Catholic
> history. Since I don't have my Eccl Hist handy, and none of his other
> works, please provide a quotation or two, and show where specifically
> the church's history is 'unreliable.'

That is not the issue. The quote that I replied to was:

"The special status of Rome was obvious to Christians even in the first
three centuries
(read Eusebius).

So your question really doesn't apply. However, one does have to look at
his works where he stated in his opening words "the successions from the
holy apostles" which is a far cry from current Roman Catholic suggestions
that there was only one succession and that was from St. Peter.

> >> The pope is the head of the one, true, holy, catholic, and apostolic
> >> church, the one founded by Jesus.
> >
> >Yes, that fairly describes Alexandria. It used to also describe the
> bishop
> >of Rome. It is too bad it no longer does.
>
> Well, the head of the Catholic church was never in Alexandria.

He is there right now.

> >> As the pope of Rome is the symbol of unity in the church, those
> bishops
> >> who are in communion with him are united to the body of Christ, the
> >> true vine.
> >
> >No, they are simply in communion with the heretical Roman Catholic
> Church.
>
> IZZ TOO!

No one denied that the bishops who are in communion with the heretical pope
of Rome look to him as some symbol of unity. But that unity is in
heretical belief. That does not describe the Church, the body of Christ,
the true vine.

> Can you give some particulars about the alleged heresy of the Catholic

> church, headquartered in Rome? Please provide specific facts.

Papal infallibility, created grace, purgatory, changing the Creed to
reflect thought that is contradicted in Scripture. Need one go on?

> I am trying to do some reading on the history of the EO church, and why
> it went into schism, but our benighted public library system has
> nothing on it, and I have to settle for inter library loans, and that
> gives me only a month to read thick and densely written tomes, which is
> a frustratating exercise.

The problem, of course, is that you are looking in the wrong direction.
You should be looking at why Rome left the Church to pursue papal
Christianity.

> Many souls were released from Purgatory as I tried to read Dvornik's book
> The Photian Schism. I could not finish it in the month alloted to me.

Since purgatory doesn't exist, no souls were released. Sorry to tell you
the ending.

> >> Those that are not are in schism, and I pray that they will return to
> >> the true fold --they and their members --as soon as possible.
> >
> >We have left a light on for those who have left the Church over the
> >centuries. It is hopeful that one day all, including the Roman
> Catholics,
> >will give up their wrong beliefs and return to the Church.
>

> Of course, it is amply clear that while the various EO churches have
> true hierarchy and true sacraments, they are not based on the model of
> unity of the early church, as Jesus intended it to be.

No, it is based on the model of unity that Christ intended. It is Rome who
came up with a competing system, papal Christianity, that not only
abandoned what Christ intended, but actively goes against it.

Evan

[Evan Kalenik]

Edward Thorne wrote:

> >Edward Thorne wrote:
> >
> >> No, there are those who have left the church, and are on the outside
> >> looking in. These are the EOs, and they have chosen to be in schism
> >> ever since they repudiated the council of Florence.
> >
> >Which only goes to show how unreliable Roman Catholic "history" is.
>
> Do you mean that the EO accepted the council of Florence?

No, the Orthodox Catholic Church did not accept the council of Florence.
So there was nothing there. It was the chance for Rome to be reunited with
the Church but Rome would not abandon its errors. So it was Rome who opted
to remain in schism.

> >> But, there is no single EO church. There is one in Byznatium, one in
> >> Kiev, one in Moscow, Sofia, Bucharest, Belgrade, and recent
> >> establishments in the Middle East and elsewhere.
> >
> >There never was "one" Orthodox Catholic Church. There was one in
> Corinth,
> >there was one in Jerusalem, there was one in Crete, there was one in
> >Alexandria, there was one in Rome, there was one in Antioch, there was
> one
> >in Constantinople, etc. That said, however, there was one Orthodox
> >Catholic Faith that was believed and practiced in all of those local
> >churches. The Church was the bishop and his flock, as one of the
> fathers
> >said.
>
> The church is one, not a federation of churches. Acts tells us that.

The Church is one. The Church can be found at all those places that I
mentioned. The fullness of the Church can be found at all of those places
that I mentioned. The Church which is at Antioch is no different than the
Church which is at Jerusalem.

> >> It is the same Church that existed from the time of
> >> >Christ, the same Church that Rome used to belong to.
> >>
> >> Well, the EO church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ.
> >
> >The Orthodox Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It
> is
> >the very same Church that the Roman Catholic Church left almost a
> thousand
> >years ago so she could practice papal Christianity.
>
> Then why did the Patriarchs submit appeals to Rome and accept Roman
> decisions? They did that from their foundation to 1054.

For the same reason that they also appealed to each other. Being safely
away from the east did keep Rome out of some of the disputes, and Rome did
have a good history of following the Catholic faith. Rome was granted the
position of first among equals. But then again, if they did not like what
they heard, they had the final appeal, to an ecumenical council.

> Any bishop is a vicar of CHrist.

Yet only one bishop now is THE vicar of Christ to Roman Catholics.

> >> The bishop of Rome has always been the sign of unity and the head of
> >> the church.
> >
> >Within Rome, within the geographical area that the Church granted the
> >bishop of Rome, which was clearly defined and did not extend beyond his
> >diocese nor co-existed with any other bishop.
>
> Well, if you refuse to recognize the unity of the church as reflected
> in the bishop of Rome, as you alluded to above, then how can the church
> be said to exist now?

That was true while Rome taught the Apostolic Faith. Once she stopped,
once the pope lost Apostolic Succession, that wasn't the case. Bishops can
stop being, to use one of your terms, a valid bishop. When that happens
one must break with them. That is what happened with Rome.

> If the unity of the Church resides in Peter and in his successors, and
> then it no longer does so, then how can the church be said to be one?

It still resides in the successors of St. Peter, all Orthodox Catholic
bishops. The Church is one, even when, as was the case with Rome, one
bishop decides to teach a new form of Christianity. Of course that bishop
or pope is no longer "of St. Peter".

> >> >As for teaching authority, we have Holy Tradition and we have
> bishops, as we
> >> > have had bishops since they were consecrated by the Apostles.
> >>
> >> But, what good are the bishops? You have repudiated even your own
> >> bishops, which goes to show that you are obstinate in your schism.
> >
> >I beg your pardon? Where did I do that?
>
> When you repudiated your bishops at Florence.

No, our bishops repudiated what when on. The Church agreed with those who
repudiated it. Some at the council, some later.

> >> > We also don't feel the
> >> >need to create new revelation since that was done once, by Christ.
> >>
> >> Well, we don't do that!
> >
> >You did. Created Grace, papal infallibility, etc., are all new
> >"revelations". I guess what Christ gave us just wasn't enough to
> support
> >Papal Christianity.
>
> You don't beleive in grace?

Not in created grace.

> Not in holiness?

Pagans believe in some "holiness". So what?

> Not in God's helps?

Not a claim that only Roman Catholics make.

> You believe in the possibility of error?

By mortal men? Sure. By the Church? No. You simply believe it of mortal
men.

> After all, we know that even bishops, many bishops, can break from the
> church and teach erroneous doctrines.

We have seen that coming from Rome for almost a thousand years.

> >> >> BTW, I've asked it before. Who infallably said that only 7
> Councils
> >> >> were necessary?
> >> >
> >> >No one. Thankfully there has been no reason to have another council
> >> >similar to the first seven.
> >>
> >> Maybe that is because there is no more emperor to call one.
> >
> >A non-answer.
>
> No, the EO beleives that only an emperor can call a general council.

The Church gave that right to the emperor, in Rome and in the east. So
there is no difference.

> >> >BTW, are you ever going to answer my question? I guess not. It
> does
> >> >answer how reliable Roman Catholic History is, which is not very
> reliable at
> > >>all.
> >
> >> It was you that started that thread?
> >
> >No. But my question asks the same question.
>
> Well, repeat the question, please, and stop belly-aching!

If you insist that the Church always believed what the Roman Catholic
Church now believes, please provide me with the councils that met and said
we no longer believe what you claim was always the belief of the Church.

> >> Well, since you repudiate your own bishops, and since you selectively
> >> cite the fathers, and come up with fanciful histories as to when they
> >> exercised their office, and since you repudiate scripture, it is easy
> >> to see that the response you gave above has no merit of its own; it is
>
> >> utterly worthless.
> >
> >Excuse me, but that is the comment that I have made about Roman Catholic
>
> >"history" over and over. One that you and the rest have yet to
> disprove.
>
> Well, please be specific as to alleged unreliable history.

First, please document your claims. I have already done what you have
asked in the past over and over.

Evan

[Padraic42]

In article <347735...@charlotte.infi.net>, RobinOak
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:

><HTML><PRE>> Where the Donation of Constantine simply was a large land grab,

>seems that
> the whole papal foundation was based on another whole batch of
>forgeries.
>
> Bill

But AgThorn, this church is verrry ollllld. And this
>very old church
was run by a lot of humans. </PRE></HTML>

He's also making a false presumption here Robin since the Church NEVER based
Papal authority on the Donation of Constantine which even the Church said was a
forgery.

Bill knows this, but facts matter little when you can use it against the
truth as Bill does.

Pax Christi, Pat
"If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his
cross, and begin to follow in my footsteps." (Matt.16:24)
(http://members.aol.com/Padraic42/Franciscan/devotions.htm)

[Michael Scheifler]

Padraic42 wrote:

> Are we on this tripe again? Was the Donation of Constantine a forgery? Sure
> was. Was it ever used by the Church? No.Yet, it keeps cropping up, even after
> it has been shown to be a false charge.

This extract on The Donation of Constantine is from the
1913 Catholic encyclopedia:

The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX;
in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an
earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the
"Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as
evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy
and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted
it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from
his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea". The ecclesiastical
writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of
the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regiâ
potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore
ecclesiæ, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ,
Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist.,
Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71). St. Peter Damian also relied
on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio
synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88). Gregory VII himself never quoted this
document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular
power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the
island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV)
took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro,
in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24;
Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced
its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the
popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the
pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the
legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations.
The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no
one before the fifteenth century.

You can read the entire article online at
http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/05118a.htm

So scholarly Catholics acknowledge that the Catholic Church
defended the Donation as authentic for hundreds of years, up
until the fifteenth century! Who are we to believe, them or Pat?

Michael
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/

[Michael Scheifler]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------85AB320BADF42F738788D9B3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Timothy Consodine wrote:

> Horse manure. What we have here is just another half-assed attempt of
> "scholarship" by some anti-Catholic idiot who surgically isolates words and
> phrases from documents and twists them to get them to mean what he wants
> them to mean. (Probably the same crowd who read Jack Chick's comic books.)
>
> Why is it that there have been 21 ecumenical councils in the last 1700
> years - and not once is there any semblance of anything you described?
>
> Go get a clue.
>

> > "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of
> > heaven, and earth, and purgatory." Prompta Bibliotheca, by
> > Feraris, Vol.VI, p.26, article "Papa."
>
> How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Attached is the cover page of Prompta Bibliotheca, and then the
paragraph in question (enlarged to be readable), in Latin.
The sentence in question is near the bottom of the pararaph
and reads -

7. Hinc Papa triplici corona coronatur, tamquam Rex Caeli, & Terrz, & Infernorum;

Michael Scheifler
--------------85AB320BADF42F738788D9B3
Content-Type: image/gif; name="biblio1c.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="biblio1c.gif"

<encoded_portion_removed>
QiM8QiRMQiVcQiZsQifUwCAAADs=

--------------85AB320BADF42F738788D9B3
Content-Type: image/gif; name="biblio2c.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="biblio2c.gif"

<encoded_portion_removed>
IAAAOw==

--------------85AB320BADF42F738788D9B3--

[RobinOak]

Stephen Patten wrote:

> To defend the call for the Crusades is not whitewashing. Should Catholics
> have allowed the Muslems to slay pilgrims, and allow the holy places to be
> destroyed?

There is such a thing as a **balanced** response of self-defense. To
kill six million people because of the banking practices of a very small
number, for instance, is not what I'd call "balanced." As an example.

[]

> Were the Catholic princes wrong in trying to
> stop the forces of protestantism in the 16th/17th spreading its errors?

Yes, as a matter of fact: IMO, they _were_ wrong. Since you pose the
question that way.... <and let's not whitewash the Catholic princes'
motives either: were they more concerned with doctrine or with politics,
for the most part?>

As far as 'stopping the forces of Protestantism,' my own feeling is that
people should be 'allowed' to approach the deity as they see Him/Her/It,
and not have someone else's vision foisted on them, particularly not at
the point of a sword.

> More recently Catholics in Spain took up arms against atheistic-socialism;
> why was this wrong? Why were the Catholic Mexicans, who opposed by force
> of arms the attempted destruction of the Faith in the 1920's, wrong? The
> list goes on ... Are you saying that Catholics should have rolled over
> and allowed these hostile forces to triumph?

Are you saying that blood spilling is better than healing, loving, and
preaching by good example? Are you also thinking that in any 'religious'
conflict, doctrine is the **only** factor at work, and factors of
culture, politics and **economics** are *never* implicated in these
kinds of conflicts? To any degree whatsoever? <smile> ... Stephen...
<smile>

> Think of the error and confusion such forces have sown.

Think of the creative diversity that has been squashed, and the
libraries that were burnt.

> This confusion concerns the most
> important knowledge we need: how to save our souls. What is more
> important: to lose one's life or to lose one's soul?

When a group of people decides that only they have the absolute right
way, and further decide that they will shove this 'way' down the throats
of others, even to the point of going to war, then yes: I'd say that was
damned wrong.

Let's see what some others who post here think about that, about the
wars of religion.

> Knights Templars and Hospitallers were counseled to not hate their foes in
> battle during the Crusades. Why? Because the Church knew that to hate was
> a sin.

Don't "hate" 'em, just slash 'em all to death? Geeez, louise....
There's a word for this, and I can't remember what it is.

Sophistry. That might have been it....

> The Crusades were not called lightly - Islam had been assailing
> Christendom for 400 or so years before their call, why in the 9th century
> Rome itself was sacked and burned, papal residence included. The Church
> knew well the spiritual risks involved: some of those crusading might fall
> into mortal sin.

So it was better to kill?? I thought that was a mortal sin too.

> It weighed this against the spiritual harm not calling a
> Crusade might cause.

Good heavens, listen to you! You're promoting war here, as a 'higher
good' than a man-made definition of 'spiritual harm'! Good God almighty,
Stephen, have you ever been on a battlefield?? Do you *realize* the
implications of what you are **saying**?? Have you ever been in battle??

War often looks grand and glorious to those who've never seen real blood
spilled. These are the people who get all excited over these phrases
like 'just cause' and 'spiritual harm' and 'a higher good' and "To Keep
The World Safe for Democracy."

Try asking the men who have actually *been* in terrible battles what
they may think of these high-sounding, grand catchphrases concerning
war.

I've known a few men like this, men who've actually seen real bloody
warfare. And if anyone like that is lurking here, it's quite possible
that he's either enraged, nauseated, or in tears by now. Or, all of the
above.

It's rhetoric like this that sends men like that to their deaths.

Think carefully before using any high-flown phrases whatsoever
concerning war.

War is limbs and testicles being blown off, blood, intense suffering,
and death. And death is often the least of it. It's not how they often
portray it in the popular songs and in the history books.

And war itself, and its aftermath can do incredible 'spiritual harm.'
Don't believe _everything_ you read in "The Screwtape Letters." <s>

> Re: The Witch Trials, if I recall correctly, did not most of the burnings
> occur in countries were protestants had taken power? Perhaps if
> Catholics had not opposed the forces of error during the Thirty Years War
> even more would have suffered.

Oh definitely - the Prots too did more than their share of witch
burning. Absolutely. In fact, I've been brainstorming with Janet on
that, trying to piece out just how much of the later Burning Times may
have been motivated, in part, by the Reformation. <nothing like an
'outside enemy' to bring folks closer together...even if one has to
invent that enemy>.

The question of who burnt more women, Protestants or Catholics, is for
me moot in this discussion. I think we had been talking about the issue
of whitewashing history. And red herrings which are aimed pointing an
accusatory finger at somebody else, in order to distract attention from
one's own responsibilities are...

Well, goofy. <s> And very bad form. Also, totally transparent.

> Whitewashing is wrong, but so is the reverse (blackwashing?).

Agreed. So who's 'blackwashing' here, me or you?

Think about the war rhetoric issue. It's important.

[AgThorn]

"Stephen Patten" <hei...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

>To defend the call for the Crusades is not whitewashing. Should Catholics
>have allowed the Muslems to slay pilgrims, and allow the holy places to be

>destroyed? Was Charles Martel wrong in opposing the forces of Islam at

>Poitiers in the 8th century? Were the Catholic princes wrong in trying to

>stop the forces of protestantism in the 16th/17th spreading its errors?

>More recently Catholics in Spain took up arms against atheistic-socialism;
>why was this wrong? Why were the Catholic Mexicans, who opposed by force
>of arms the attempted destruction of the Faith in the 1920's, wrong? The
>list goes on ... Are you saying that Catholics should have rolled over

>and allowed these hostile forces to triumph? Think of the error and
>confusion such forces have sown. This confusion concerns the most

>important knowledge we need: how to save our souls. What is more
>important: to lose one's life or to lose one's soul?

Ah ... we can talk all about those things, and you make some good points,
but the "white washing" we are discussing are those that would excuse the
forgeries, as well as those that would allow a re-write of history as long
as it told the story the way they want it to be ... regardless of the truth
...

You make some good points, but they are are just part of the thread ....

Bill

[AgThorn]

padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:

> He's also making a false presumption here Robin since the Church NEVER based
>Papal authority on the Donation of Constantine which even the Church said was a
>forgery.
>
> Bill knows this, but facts matter little when you can use it against the
>truth as Bill does.

Ah, Padraic, the true seeker of truth, eh? the one that said that the
Donation was a Protestant creation correct? Me thinks that you exemplify
the very "white washing" that we are talking about ... You are one that,
once cornered, accepted the churches statements only while assuming that
the church must have been tricked ... it is this very blind, false,
inaccurate view of history that misleads. granted there are those on the
anti-catholic side (ala Jack Chick, etc.) that need to be countered ... but
rather than doing so well (as a Keating or the like) you present the same
mistruths in reverse .... Padraic, a "romanized version" of Jack Chick.

[AgThorn]

padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:

>In article <3476eec...@news2.ibm.net>, wds@*pobox.com (AgThorn) writes:
>
>>>But, I don't know of any disputes that were decided by the bishop or
>>>Rome and overturned by a council --disputes within the patriarchate.

>>Although a bit off the subject, but relatted to the subject line, this
>>reminds me of our earlier discussion on the forged "Donation of
>>Constantine". I believe it was you, Ed, that referred to this as the
>>"false Decretals?". (spelling?)

>Are we on this tripe again?

tripe? sounds "fishy" to me!! ;-)

>Was the Donation of Constantine a forgery? Sure was.

This part Padraic can't argue with since he would be arguing with the
Vatican's own (although centuries late) acceptance of it.

>Was it ever used by the Church? No.

This part Padraic want's to "rewrite history" over, but let's leave it all
up to the reader to do their own web search, encyclopedia read, or whatever
... the truth is there for all to read ... granted, in Padraic's honor, be
certain to have a discerning eye always tuned to the "source" of the
"history" you read ... but even Catholic historians accept that the Church
DID use the Donation for it's benefit ... why else was it created, one has
to ask ... that is unless you are Padraic ...

>Yet, it keeps cropping up, even after it has been shown to be a false charge.

I rest my case ...

[AgThorn]

Evan Kalenik <kal...@webspan.net> wrote:

And, although we are running wild and loose out here as Western
Protestants, Evan ... most of us that understand the true meaning of the
word "Catholic" versus the Roman definition, also are Western Catholics ...
we are just NOT as united as you ...

[AgThorn]

"Timothy Consodine" <timo...@flash.net> wrote:

>How about quoting at least the entire paragraph from which this came?

Timothy, your repetition serves nothing ... if you want to disprove the
paragraphs and sources quoted, please do quote the surrounding text that
will put it back in the context that you seem to think it came from ... why
are you so unwilling to believe your own documents? I am an outsider, I
read and support a lot of views from catholics to protestants and
protestants to catholics .... if the information has sources, and those
sources can be tested and they prove true, I must believe ... until someone
shows otherwise ....

Can you do the same? It's called "truth" ... when we close our eyes and
ears to it, we are not growing ... I remain open to your correction ...

John 1
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ...full of
grace and TRUTH. 17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace
and TRUTH came by Jesus Christ.

In His Name,
Bill