Rule Of Law Ends In Boston Archdiocese

[Evangelion]

Seebs -

I believe he is genuinely sorry for the harm he's done

I do not dispute the fact that he is. (But who wouldn't be?!)

and that the harm was mostly or entirely done in ignorance.

Not so. That is precisely why I take issue with Law's negligence. (See here.)

Additional proof available on request.

 

[isshinwhat]

Relevance?

Your sources information is flawed.

 

[Evangelion]

Prove it. Come on, matey - I want to see you refute the history which I've just presented.

 

[Evangelion]

isshinwhat -

• 
  On the point – the role of the Papacy in the conversion of Europe – we need some background for, in the early Church prior to Toleration in AD 313, there had been no suggestion that the Bishop of Rome exercised any significant influence, much less authority, outside his own domain. However, when Constantine’s Edict of Toleration (AD 313) granted freedom of belief and worship to Christians, a completely new situation developed which necessitated a radical change in Church policy. For, from that time on, the emperors were Christians; and increasingly, they tended to rule the Church as a kind of Department of State, as if they – rather than thee bishops – were the successors of St Peter and the Apostles.

Which part of this is incorrect?

• 
  By the time of the Lombard campaigns in the mid 700’s, another political factor was adding further prestige to the Papacy – in spiritual rather than political terms. For, with the rapid expansion of Islam, all through the Middle East and right across North Africa in the century following Mohammed’s death in 634, all the other “Apostolic Sees” (Jerusalem, Antioch and Ephesus), which had originally evangelized by one or other of the apostles, were now in Islamic hands; and this meant that the only surviving Apostolic See in Christendom was Rome. Hence, Rome’s present claim to the title, “The Apostolic See.”

Which part of this is incorrect?

• 
  Almost by chance, therefore, from the late 700’s, not only did the popes claim spiritual authority over the whole of Christendom as “Successors of Peter” and bishop of the one and only surviving “Apostolic See”, but they were recognized as the political overlords of about one-fifth of Italy also – this new status of the Papacy being confirmed in the papal coronation of Charlemagne in the year 800.

Which part of this is incorrect?

• 
  One of the clearest indications of the new role of the Papacy can be seen in the fact that, before the early 1100’s, not a single General or “Ecumenical” Council of the Church had been summoned by a pope or even held in the capital West: from the early 12th Century onwards, however, there would be frequent Councils; all would be held in the West; and all would be summoned and directed by the pope.

Which part of this is incorrect?

• 
  R. W. Southern supplies the details in Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, as follows: “Between the seventh century and the early twelfth the Councils are few and, from a western point of view, insignificant. They are all held in Byzantine territory (one at Nicaea, in 787, and two in Constantinople, in 680 and 869), and there were no representatives from the West except the papal legates, who played a minor role in the proceedings. The whole picture therefore is one of western inertia and papal impotence.

Which part of this is incorrect?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

He has corrupted the dignity of his position, and destroyed the credibility of his Church - and she has aided and abetted him, every step of the way.

So, did Judas Iscariot destroy the credibility of Jesus' ministry?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I see no evidence that your church even existed before the 900s.

You have been horribly misinformed. Please learn some history before you incite a riot on these boards. There are some very intelligent and informed Catholics that will likely rip your credibility apart if you continue posting these lies.

 

[isshinwhat]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=510495#post510495

The quotes I provided, each from before the Edict of Milan, give proof that the Roman Church, under her bishop, had "pre- eminent authority" and was "by his [Christ's] own authority the source and hallmark" of the Church's unity. This Church "that he entrusts the sheep to feed" was built upon "the Chair of Peter" from Pentecost onward, according to these passages. Therefore, if it was believed that the Roman Church under her Bishop had "pre- eminent authority" and he was entrusted to feed Christ's sheep by his ministry as Peter's successor from at least 180 A.D., then your source's claim that "prior to Toleration in AD 313, there had been no suggestion that the Bishop of Rome exercised any significant influence, much less authority, outside his own domain," and all subsuquent claims which rest upon it, are false.

Neal

 

[isshinwhat]

Which part of this is incorrect?



By the time of the Lombard campaigns in the mid 700’s, another political factor was adding further prestige to the Papacy – in spiritual rather than political terms. For, with the rapid expansion of Islam, all through the Middle East and right across North Africa in the century following Mohammed’s death in 634, all the other “Apostolic Sees” (Jerusalem, Antioch and Ephesus), which had originally evangelized by one or other of the apostles, were now in Islamic hands; and this meant that the only surviving Apostolic See in Christendom was Rome. Hence, Rome’s present claim to the title, “The Apostolic See.”


Which part of this is incorrect?



Almost by chance, therefore, from the late 700’s, not only did the popes claim spiritual authority over the whole of Christendom as “Successors of Peter” and bishop of the one and only surviving “Apostolic See”, but they were recognized as the political overlords of about one-fifth of Italy also – this new status of the Papacy being confirmed in the papal coronation of Charlemagne in the year 800.

I would also take excpetion to the above posts, specifically the italicized portions, as the ecumenical Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D., specifically addresses Rome as "the Apostolic See," a full 200 years before your source credits them that title and the ministry that goes with it.

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....

Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252

 

[Evangelion]

That's the spirit, lads - a healthy dose of fisticuffs will do us all a power of good!

S0uljah -

So, did Judas Iscariot destroy the credibility of Jesus' ministry?

Nope. Judas wasn't in a position of authority, was he? He wasn't in charge of an entire diocese, was he? He was just another disciple, like all the rest.

 

[Evangelion]

S0ljah -

You have been horribly misinformed.

Have I? Dear me, perhaps I'd better go back to my Alma Mater and request a refund for my university education on the grounds that "Some dude on the Internet told me that I'm wrong."

Please learn some history

You mean, like my Bachelor of Arts with a major in religious studies and a minor in philosophy, during which I studied early Church history under a Lutheran history professer?

That sort of thing?

before you incite a riot on these boards.

A what? *giggle*

There are some very intelligent and informed Catholics

I have no doubt that there are some very intelligent and informed Catholics.

There are also some very intelligent and informed non-Catholics.

that will likely rip your credibility apart

We shall see.

if you continue posting these lies.

What lies?

Do you realise that almost nobody but a Catholic will accept your version of history? Doesn't that tell you something?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Evangelion

Nope. Judas wasn't in a position of authority, was he? He wasn't in charge of an entire diocese, was he? He was just another disciple, like all the rest.

Um, the modern day Bishops are successors of the apostles. So, yeah, it is the same thing.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

my Bachelor of Arts with a major in religious studies and a minor in philosophy, during which I studied early Church history under a Lutheran history professer?

Ok, so you learned the Lutheran version of history. And then you go on to say:

Do you realise that almost nobody but a Catholic will accept your version of history? Doesn't that tell you something?

And a Lutheran will accept a Lutheran version of History. So what? We win by default, since there were no Lutherans before the 1500's, lol.

 

[Evangelion]

Um, no, it's not. The two concepts are wildly disparate.

Are you trying to tell me that Judas was a bishop?!

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Um, no, it's not. The two concepts are wildly disparate.

Are you trying to tell me that Judas was a bishop?!

He would have been, just as the rest of the apostles were bishops.

Didn't you learn about that in your prestiguous Religious Studies program? No? How about the Bible? Did ya read that part professor?

 

[Evangelion]

S0uljah -

Ok, so you learned Lutheran history.

No, I did not learn Lutheran history. Read it again: I studied early Church history; specifically, the years AD 100-500, with particular reference to the reforms of Constantine and the Arian controversy.

Will you please stop mispresenting me, or can't you help yourself?

And you go on to say:

quote:

Do you realise that almost nobody but a Catholic will accept your version of history? Doesn't that tell you something?

And a Lutheran will accept a Lutheran version of History.

No, that's not true. There is no unique "Lutheran version of history."

So what? We win by default

How?

since there were no Lutherans before the 1500's, lol.

ROTFL!!! Of course there weren't! What's your point?

 

[Evangelion]

S0uljah -

He would have been, just as the rest of the apostles were bishops.

What??! I'd like to see some Biblical proof for this assertion, please!

Didn't you learn about that in your prestiguous Religious Studies program?

Nope. We studied factual history, not Catholic myths and modern revisionism.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

You are representing yourself quite accurately, you need no help from me. You point out your academic credentials under a Lutheran, and then make a snide remark about Catholic history. Its hypocritical.

We studied factual history, not Catholic myths and modern revisionism

Please prove these Catholic revisions of History. Where are you getting this stuff from, lol.

 

[Evangelion]

S0uljah -

You are representing yourself quite accurately, you need no help from me.

So why do you keep misrepresenting me?!

You point out your academic credentials under a Lutheran

Yep. A Lutheran teaching at a secular university. Do you understand the word "secular"? It means non-religious. Do you understand that a secular universtity does not permit its lecturers to speak from the perspective of their own personal religious backgrounds?

Please grow up.

and then make a snide remark about Catholic history.

Yep.

Its hypocritical.

Nope. You're simply creating a conspiracy theory in a vain attempt to downgrade my education. That's not only stupid - it's also a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Please prove these Catholic revisions of History.

I thought you'd never ask!

Where are you getting this stuff from, lol.

We can start with J. N. D. Kelly.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Do you understand that a secular universtity does not permit its lecturers to speak from the perspective of their own personal religious backgrounds?

If you believe that, you are more naive than I imagined. Secular professors not skewing their teachings through their own biases?

Now I have heard everything, lol.

You're simply creating a conspiracy theory in a vain attempt to downgrade my education.

Actually, you were the one bringing up a conspiracy of Catholics to revise history. And its not my fault you brought in your credentials into the conversation. If they happen to get trashed as a side-effect, that is your fault, not mine.

 

[Evangelion]

S0uljah -

If you believe that, you are more naive than I imagined. Secular professors not skewing their teachings through their own biases?

*snip*

Well, there you have it, folks. Present these people with the facts, and they scream "CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!"

If I had said "He was not religous", I would have been told "Well, how can you trust anything he says about the Church?"

If I had said "He was Catholic", I would have been told "He can't be a practicing Catholic!"

I have said he was a Lutheran - and now I get "He's biased!" (And yet... no proof for this claim is forthcoming.)

Would any rational Catholic like to respond for a change?