OC division or unity with the RCC?

[BNR32FAN]

Haha, the Council I referenced existed. It's like telling me to prove Nicea in 325 AD actually was held. Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning sounds?

Without seeing evidence how do I know that you even know what your talking about? Like I said people claim eternal security is supported by the scriptures and it’s not. I never said the council didn’t exist I said the statement that you believe supports your view may not support it at all. Millions of people believe John 10:28-29 supports eternal security. Does it? No

 

[BNR32FAN]

All the bishops were relatively equal until Constantine vacated Rome and turned his Lateran Palace over to the bishop of Rome .

"Pontifex Maximus" was a title for the leader of a pagan priesthood until the Roman emperor subsumed that title. Julius Caesar became pontifex in 73 BC and pontifex maximus in 63 BC.

220 A.D. Tertullian used the title in a derogatory way to refer to the bishop of Rome 220

"In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The "Pontifex Maximus," that is the "bishop of bishops," issues an edict: "I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication." O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, "Good deed!"... Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!— Tertullian, "​

"From the time of Theodosius I (r 379–395), the emperors no longer appear in the dignity of pontiff, but the title was later applied to the Christian bishop of Rome"

I still don’t understand how this made the bishop of Rome above the other bishops of the pentarchy. What was the point of the ecumenical council then?

 

[Not David]

I still don’t understand how this made the bishop of Rome above the other bishops of the pentarchy. What was the point of the ecumenical council then?

It didn't. Most of the Protestants since to believe that somehow the Pope of Rome became the Head of the Church when the rest of the other bishops didn't believe that.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting enough, the Church recognized Rome's authority shortly after Nicea in 325. All one needs to do is take a look at the canons of the Council of Sardica. There Rome certainly has undeniable authority.

It began claiming such authority at about that point in time, but of course this calls into question the oft-heard claim that the bishop of Rome was acknowledged as a Pope during the 300 years leading up to the time you are speaking of.

Albion said: ↑
That's right, but my point was that there wasn't any acceptance of that claim at any time prior to the Great Schism of 1054 when a formal split occurred.

your point is historically wrong...again.

And you prove that by showing no evidence at all?

The first claim is that nothing is there... Did you want all the historic documents of all of time for the "proof of nothing there".???

In the classic nothing-there vs something-there debate - it is up to the something-there side to show "something there" because "nothing" is always easy to present - it is a claim for nothing.

"Something" on the other hand - must exist to be true.

Haha, the Council I referenced existed.

which council "existed" and stating "what" about the bishop of Rome being pontif, pope, supreme pontiff etc - before Constantine??

 

[BobRyan]

All the bishops were relatively equal until Constantine vacated Rome and turned his Lateran Palace over to the bishop of Rome .

"Pontifex Maximus" was a title for the leader of a pagan priesthood until the Roman emperor subsumed that title. Julius Caesar became pontifex in 73 BC and pontifex maximus in 63 BC.

220 A.D. Tertullian used the title in a derogatory way to refer to the bishop of Rome 220

"In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The "Pontifex Maximus," that is the "bishop of bishops," issues an edict: "I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication." O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, "Good deed!"... Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!— Tertullian, "​

"From the time of Theodosius I (r 379–395), the emperors no longer appear in the dignity of pontiff, but the title was later applied to the Christian bishop of Rome"

I still don’t understand how this made the bishop of Rome above the other bishops of the pentarchy. What was the point of the ecumenical council then?

If all bishops where equal as even the OC claim for that period of time - then "a change" had to have come about to make the Pope a bit more "pontifex maximus" than you would expect with "all are the same"

Giving the bishop powers over civil government would give the bishop of Rome supremacy over other bishop ... from a civil gov't frame of reference

 

[BNR32FAN]

It didn't. Most of the Protestants since to believe that somehow the Pope of Rome became the Head of the Church when the rest of the other bishops didn't believe that.

One could say that Rome was the first Protestants

 

[BNR32FAN]

If all bishops where equal as even the OC claim for that period of time - then "a change" had to have come about to make the Pope a bit more "pontifex maximus" than you would expect with "all are the same"

Giving the bishop powers over civil government would give the bishop of Rome supremacy over other bishop ... from a civil gov't frame of reference

Ahh I see, now I get it! That’s why they always say you should never mix religion with politics. Makes sense.

 

[prodromos]

Interesting enough, the Church recognized Rome's authority shortly after Nicea in 325. All one needs to do is take a look at the canons of the Council of Sardica. There Rome certainly has undeniable authority.

Which of the canons are you referring to?

 

[Not David]

Ahh I see, now I get it! That’s why they always say you should never mix religion with politics. Makes sense.

Instead we get secularism.

 

[Albion]

which council "existed" and stating "what" about the bishop of Rome being pontif, pope, supreme pontiff etc - before Constantine??

That council was mentioned earlier, but the point is that it took place long after the beginnings of the church.

That means that it can provide no evidence of a Papacy being authorized by Christ or even Apostolic. The most it could do is disprove such claims.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Instead we get secularism.

Well it’s no secret that Roman politicians were the worst kind.

 

[GingerBeer]

You are the one who needs to read a History book.

I have. How about you?

 

[prodromos]

I have. How about you?

I think his comment is with regards to the "protesting Orthodox" you brought up. Who were they and what were they protesting?

 

[GingerBeer]

I think his comment is with regards to the "protesting Orthodox" you brought up. Who were they and what were they protesting?

They were in Constantinople and they protested Latins and burned their churches while killing them in a religious purge in 1182 AD. Prior to that they protested the papal legates by disrespecting them and refusing a meeting which led to one of the legates excommunicating the patriarch of Constantinople, that was around 1054 AD. Really, protesting is a common theme in religion.

 

[concretecamper]

That council was mentioned earlier, but the point is that it took place long after the beginnings of the church.

So, I provided evidence that Rome did have authority, despite you claim to the contrary, see below. 342 vs 1054, you ain't even in the same millennium

"Albion said: ↑
That's right, but my point was that there wasn't any acceptance of that claim at any time prior to the Great Schism of 1054 when a formal split occurred"

You are a historian

That means that it can provide no evidence of a Papacy being authorized by Christ or even Apostolic.

Just because you dont interpret scripture in the manner consistent with Christian history, doesn't make it true.

 

[concretecamper]

rest of the other bishops didn't believe that

maybe some in the East, and maybe the Patriarch of Constantinople. But thank God for Rome becasue She squashed some of the most egregious heresies originating in the East....just saying.

 

[Not David]

maybe some in the East, and maybe the Patriarch of Constantinople. But thank God for Rome becasue She squashed some of the most egregious heresies originating in the East....just saying.

Because of her Orthodoxy not because of being Rome.
From The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor
The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,

"To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:

The Saint said, "They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?"

"Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?" they objected.

To this the Saint replied, "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience."

"But what will you do," inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. "

The Saint replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy. When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong. (pp. 60-62)

 

[BobRyan]

So, I provided evidence that Rome did have authority, despite you claim to the contrary, see below. 342 vs 1054, you ain't even in the same millennium

"The problem" with that is that the OC spin off taking the practices of the church "at that time" like a snapshot in time. How is it that such a "snapshot" shows bishops having equal authority rather than one single "pontifex maximus".

Notice that a few centuries later around the time of Luther there are 3 papal lines all running at the same time and they have 3 pontifex maximus pyramids and not a group with a bunch of co-equal bishops.

On the other hand you could argue that at the split in 324 they had one pontifex maximus coming to power in Constantinople and another in Rome.

 

[concretecamper]

"The problem" with that is that the OC spin off taking the practices of the church "at that time" like a snapshot in time. How is it that such a "snapshot" shows bishops having equal authority rather than one single "pontifex maximus".

Notice that a few centuries later around the time of Luther there are 3 papal lines all running at the same time and they have 3 pontifex maximus pyramids and not a group with a bunch of co-equal bishops.

On the other hand you could argue that at the split in 324 they had one pontifex maximus coming to power in Constantinople and another in Rome.

if anyone else can follow this logic, please chime in

 

[BobRyan]

if anyone else can follow this logic, please chime in

Each group that left took the practices of the RCC "at the time" they did not take with them the later actions of the RCC hence for example the protesting Catholics taking a 66 book Bible (not too difficult to follow I hope).