Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Excuse me, but you are not agreeing with what I wrote there (despite the "Exactly" comment).Exactly, the Christians of Rome knew that Peter was crucified upside down and Peter had passed on his authority to the first papal cardinals
Edward, if you would kindly turn to { Matt.18: 15-18} in your KJV you will understand that Jesus is referring to His One True Apostolic Church [ Luke 10:16 ] Back in Matt.16 we see where the "keys' were only given to St.Peter and not to Luther, Calvin, Smith, etc. Peter passed the "keys'' onto Linus the second bishop of Rome
Exactly, the Christians of Rome knew that Peter was crucified upside down and Peter had passed on his authority to the first papal cardinals [ just as he organized to replace Judas] to select Linus the second bishop of Rome the "papa'' or Pope of the only Church that Jesus left for His First, Second and all future Centuries until Jesus returns as He promised.
There were no such things as Cardinals before the 5th century and no one else in all Christendom had them...the office was man made and neither Scriptural nor apostolic tradition....
Since I generally favor the EOC over the RCC by a significant margin, I would like to agree with your statement completely. However, my studies do not allow me to do so. There is at least one instance which seems to indicate that the EO may have once held to the RCC view of the supremacy of the Pope. When one Church Council was held that was not recognized by Rome as an Ecumenical Council, it named the Bishop of Constantinople as second in primacy among the five Patriarchs, next to the Pope. However, for some reason, history records that the Constantinople Patriarch later sent a letter to the Pope, which more or less amounted to an apology, explaining something to the effect that no insult was intended to the Pope, etc. Now why would the Constantinople Patriarch have felt the need to send an apologetic letter to the Pope of Rome, unless he was acknowledging that the Pope was his superior? Somehow I do not believe that the matter is totally clear. I do agree with you that in the first few centuries there is no real evidence to indicate that the East viewed the Bishop of Rome as supreme. However, this may have changed as the centuries went by. Still, it is clear by the time of Photius, that by then the East did not view the Pope as their supreme leader. I guess I am uncertain how the East really felt from say the 400's-the 800's.
Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope?
You've placed them about six centuries too early, but there's no question that the College of Cardinals was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, not the undivided church of the first millennium.
As a group of administrators tended to keep the election of the Pope more orderly, there is nothing especially controversial about Cardinals (all of whom are bishops), but of course "barryatlake" was just pulling excuses out of his hat with that claim as well as some that preceded it.
I don't doubt that, but it's interesting. It obviously is to use the word in a different way. The College of Cardinals could well have been called something else, but this is the "Electoral College" of the Popes that was created in response to a particular suggestion in the early second Millennium.Not defending the idea, but Gelasius I used the term in the 5th century. He called any priest associated with a particular local Church Cardinalis from the Latin root Cardo or hinge, and it represented a person in a chief or principle place of authority between the local parishioners and the Vatican or seat of the Roman Bishop (who at the time was Gelasius himself).
However, if primacy is established by Peter being the first Bishop there, then the primacy belongs to Antioch and not Rome...
The RC church says a lot of things that aren't true.
The RC church says a lot of things that aren't true.
But the Catholic Church was good enough for your ancestors, wasn't it?
When they had no other choice, do you mean?
Before my ancestors were Catholic and Christian they were Pagan. Are you sure such logic is useful?
-CryptoLutheran
Oh, they had a choice. Just like ol' King Henry had a choice when he followed his groin instead of his head and heart.
But the Catholic Church was good enough for your ancestors, wasn't it?
Theres something missing in your understanding of the situation. The early Church that "was good enough for my ancestors got taken over by the popes and the papists, and the true Church was suppressed, although its still there, but only in great weakness, because there will be a few true Christians left under the Papacy.
In what year did the early church get taken over by the popes and the papists?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?