According to Catholicism, what must one believe and do to be saved?

[Hentenza]

Historically, Peter was the first Bishop of Rome,

Error 1.

followed by an unbroken line of successors.

Error 2

Additionally, The Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction over His Church.

Error 3

This is proven by secular sources such as Eucibius, early Church councils where the East recognizes the Bishop of Rome's authority, and by the fact Rome kept the East from drowning in heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism.

None of the first 7 councils were presided by the pope. The church IN Rome gained positional power progressively. It did not have ecclesiastical power until Christianity became the religion of the state in the 4th century and the pope became as powerful as the weak emperors of the Roman empire until the empire in the west fell in 476ad.

So John was alive. The only thing that proves is John had humility and a lack of huberous, unlike many today

He had authority over any bishop of his time. No bishop had authority over an apostle of Christ.

If so, your view of the Trinity and the Incarnation would be much different as it is today.

Nope. Your church had nothing to do with that.

 

[concretecamper]

Error 1.

Error 2

Error 3

None of the first 7 councils were presided by the pope. The church IN Rome gained positional power progressively. It did not have ecclesiastical power until Christianity became the religion of the state in the 4th century and the pope became as powerful as the weak emperors of the Roman empire until the empire in the west fell in 476ad.

He had authority over any bishop of his time. No bishop had authority over an apostle of Christ.

Nope. Your church had nothing to do with that.

Your post reminds me of Luke Skywalker's quote:

"Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong."

 

[Hentenza]

Your post reminds me of Luke Skywalker's quote:

"Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong."

And it was.

 

[prodromos]

And it was.

I presume you were referring to @concretecamper 's post.

 

[Valletta]

None of the first 7 councils were presided by the pope.

There was no such requirement. Who told you there was?

 

[prodromos]

There was no such requirement. Who told you there was?

It was implied by concretecamper in his false claim;

by the fact Rome kept the East from drowning in heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism​

 

[Valletta]

It was implied by concretecamper in his false claim;

by the fact Rome kept the East from drowning in heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism​

Oh, I don't recall anything about personal attendance and acting as presider.

 

[prodromos]

Oh, I don't recall anything about personal attendance and acting as presider.

He claimed Rome prevented the East from spiralling into heresy. The heresies were in fact defeated in councils held in the East by champions raised up by God in the East.
Since the heresies were defeated by councils in the East and concretecamper claims Rome was instrumental in ending those heresies, it implies that Rome played a pivotal role in those councils.
The implication is, of course, false.

 

[Valletta]

He claimed Rome prevented the East from spiralling into heresy. The heresies were in fact defeated in councils held in the East by champions raised up by God in the East.
Since the heresies were defeated by councils in the East and concretecamper claims Rome was instrumental in ending those heresies, it implies that Rome played a pivotal role in those councils.
The implication is, of course, false.

That's different than a supposed requirement of a pope having to preside at a council which implied decisions by a council thus would not be valid.

 

[prodromos]

That's different than a supposed requirement of a pope having to preside at a council which implied decisions by a council thus would not be valid.

You've lost me. How was that implied?

 

[Valletta]

You've lost me. How was that implied?

His post stated: "None of the first 7 councils were presided by the pope. "

 

[prodromos]

His post stated: "None of the first 7 councils were presided by the pope. "

What did that have to do with validity?

 

[Hentenza]

His post stated: "None of the first 7 councils were presided by the pope. "

This was in response to @concretecamper false claim that Rome was responsible for eliminating heresy at the councils when, as @prodromos stated the councils were held in the east by legates from the east. What was Rome’s involvement then?

 

[Valletta]

This was in response to @concretecamper false claim that Rome was responsible for eliminating heresy at the councils when, as @prodromos stated the councils were held in the east by legates from the east. What was Rome’s involvement then?

I know for the Council of Nicaea, at a time when East and West were one Church, Pope Sylvester sent representatives and approved the decisions of the council.

 

[Hentenza]

I know for the Council of Nicaea, at a time when East and West were one Church, Pope Sylvester sent representatives and approved the decisions of the council.

Which is quite far from taking full responsibility for the canons of the councils.

 

[concretecamper]

It was implied by concretecamper in his false claim;

I don't imply anything. I say what I mean to say.

 

[concretecamper]

I know for the Council of Nicaea, at a time when East and West were one Church, Pope Sylvester sent representatives and approved the decisions of the council.

Precisely.

Boy people getting their underwear all bunch up and implying I said something I never said.

For example, a response to my post is that a Pope never presided over the first 7 eccumenical councils. What does that have to do with anything. I never IMPLIED he did.

But it's a fact that it was a council in Rome in 430 that first condemned Nestorius and called for a general council (which ended up being Ephesus) to combat this heresy.

It is also a fact that Constantinople took its lead from Pope Damascus and a Roman Council held on 378.

Let's stick to facts boys and girls.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What did that have to do with validity?

Exactly. Why does a pope have to physically attend a council to be a pope? The claim was that since the pope did not attend various councils he wasn't really head of anything outside of Rome. Typical anti-Catholic blather there. It looked like you agreed. At Nicea, the pope sent his delegate Hosius, and you know the role of Hosius there.

 

[Hentenza]

Exactly. Why does a pope have to physically attend a council to be a pope? The claim was that since the pope did not attend various councils he wasn't really head of anything outside of Rome. Typical anti-Catholic blather there. It looked like you agreed. At Nicea, the pope sent his delegate Hosius, and you know the role of Hosius there.

You twist my argument. The first seven councils were conducted in the East not in the west and all were called by emperors. I was responding to a clam that the CC was solely responsible for quashing heresy which is clearly and historically not the case. So your comment is the typical “the CC is supreme” blather.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You twist my argument.

Which one? The one about the invalidity of the pope?

The first seven councils were conducted in the East not in the west and all were called by emperors.

Yup.

I was responding to a clam that the CC was solely responsible for quashing heresy which is clearly and historically not the case.

'Solely responsible' ? Did I say or even imply that the pope was solely responsible for quashing the Arian heresy? You put up a straw man there.

So your comment is the typical “the CC is supreme” blather.

Thank you. What, in your opinion, was the role of bishop Hosius and the two Roman priests, Vitus and Vincent, at the council? Why would the two Roman priests also be presiders at the council if the bishop of Rome had no responsibility for quashing the Arian heresy. To me it is quite clear that the pope had a hand, a substantial hand, in the quashing of the Arian heresy even if he was not personally present at the council of Nicea.

The 'blather' is in minimizing his role. Also putting up the straw man that the pope was 'solely responsible'.