a question for "Bible Only" churches

[Rightlydivide]

But always, after that, on Sundays. We still have two different methods of calculating Easter Sunday, which often results in the Eastern and Western Churches celebrating Easter on different Sundays (usually about a week or so apart), but it is always a Sunday.

NO! Absolutely not. Provide a source.

 

[Nicea325]

Rightlydivide;6467393]Show me “taking…to the papacy” in this case. This is Eusebius writing in the quote below. Show me “taking it to the papacy”. You keep saying that like it was not a case of several different regional synods.

In this case? You keep making circular arguments,simply to avoid my question. I’ll ask you more time: Why even GO TO ROME,if he has no primacy? Sorry,but Eusebius was not the official spokeman for the entire church and his reference alone is not going to win you points in the world of historical empirical evidence.

First of all, synods were held within a specific region or dicoese,which in itself does not negate the papal primacy.All MATTERS should be settled within a bishop’s own dicoese/region,because that is how it has worked for 2,000 years. Now,if the issue was not settled within a specific disocese,then why even go to Rome? Why not settle it there? Sorry,but history is NOT on your side where it shows they never went to Rome for APPROVAL,ADVICE,EXCOMMUNICATIONS,etc. And why do you think they went to the pope? Because issues were not always settled at their dioceses,hence you think that is why they made a special trip to Rome? But NO primacy involved-eh?

Next topic. We are now discussing Victor and your claim that he “reversed” his decision. Show your proof of that. That is apologetics. It is opinion based upon nothing. There are no facts which support him reversing anything. If I am wrong, show me

Again,Pope Victor never excommunicated the Asian churches,he attempted but it never happened. Proof? Sorry,but I am not going to write entire books here,so I’ll give you numerous sources below all discussing the papacy,take your pick and do your research on your own time.

Now again,if the pope had NO PRIMACY,then explain the following case:

St.Cyprian (d.258) ASKS the pope (Stephen I (254-257) to INTERVENE in the AFFAIR of Marcian, bishop of Arles,who was a Novatian;he URGES the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and to see to it that a Catholic bishop be appointed.
Source: The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue

Again,if the Bishop of Rome had no PRIMACY,why ask for intervention or urge?

Now THIS is apologetics straight from the horses mouth,meaning the bishops living in those early church years.Each source below provides tons of ancient sources confirming my point that the pope had a primacy and enough bishops from the early church rebuke your position and beliefs.

The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue
One Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Kenneth D. Whitehead
Catholic and Chrisitan by Alan Schreck
Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray
The Sheperd and the Rock: Origins,Development and Mission of the Papacy
The Faith of the Early Fathers (3 Volumes) by William A. Jurgens.

 

[Rightlydivide]

In this case? You keep making circular arguments,simply to avoid my question. I’ll ask you more time: Why even GO TO ROME,if he has no primacy? Sorry,but Eusebius was not the official spokeman for the entire church and his reference alone is not going to win you points in the world of historical empirical evidence.
First of all, synods were held within a specific region or dicoese,which in itself does not negate the papal primacy.All MATTERS should be settled within a bishop’s own dicoese/region,because that is how it has worked for 2,000 years. Now,if the issue was not settled within a specific disocese,then why even go to Rome? Why not settle it there? Sorry,but history is NOT on your side where it shows they never went to Rome for APPROVAL,ADVICE,EXCOMMUNICATIONS,etc. And why do you think they went to the pope? Because issues were not always settled at their dioceses,hence you think that is why they made a special trip to Rome? But NO primacy involved-eh?

I have been discussing Victor. Who “went to Rome”? Do tell. Please. Some names. I gave a quote about what occured. Give the citation to support this view.

Again,Pope Victor never excommunicated the Asian churches,he attempted but it never happened. Proof? Sorry,but I am not going to write entire books here,so I’ll give you numerous sources below all discussing the papacy,take your pick and do your research on your own time

.

Lets see what you have said in order

Pope Victor attempted to cut off from the common unity Polycrates and others for taking this stance, but later reversed his decision after Irenaeus and others interceded

I called you on proof. You THEN said.

Again,Pope Victor never excommunicated the Asian churches,he attempted but it never happened. Proof? Sorry,but I am not going to write entire books here,

 

[jmcrae]

I have been discussing Victor. Who “went to Rome”?

Those who were trying to standardize the celebrations of Easter, and those who were against this idea, came to Rome to discuss the issue with him. They needed his “yay” or “nay” to either leave the status quo as it was, or to enforce a common standard on every Diocese of the Church. Some of them were hoping that he would just leave the status quo as it was. When he surprised them and insisted on a Sunday celebration of Easter, they went against him, and he was all for excommunicating them. (Ultimately, they were not excommunicated, but it was because other Bishops interceded with Victor to ask him to change his mind - there was no question about whether he had the authority to do this, or not (which he would not have had, if in fact those people had not been under his jurisdiction, as would have been the case, if Victor had only been a local Bishop in Rome. Those other Bishops had to intercede with Victor because Victor was of a higher rank than they were - otherwise, they could have just overruled him regarding those who were in their own jurisdictions, without discussing it with him at all.)

 

[FabiusMaximus]

So, you believe God put the scriptures into the hands of a ‘non-true’ Church, to preserve for hundreds of years until we have it in our hands today? Wouldn’t that put hundreds of years of generations under incorrect teachings?

I know you’ve seen the writings of St. Ignatius, where he used the term ‘Catholic Church’, yet it started with Constantine?

I will not speak ill of Constantine. He assured the legalization of Christianity, stopping the persecutions with the penalty of death, and he returned properties to the Christians. Let’s also not forget that Constantine was the first head of government that made Christianity the official ‘state’ religion. A pagan empire, that had persecuted Christianity, was now officially a Christian nation in the eyes of men.

You do accept the letters and epistles that are a part of the New Testament now. Letters and epistles that were preserved by the Catholic Church.

Actually…just for historical accuracy’s sake, Constantine tabled the Edict of Milan which assured religious tolerance. Emperor Theodosius I was the one that made Christianity the official state religion.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Those who were trying to standardize the celebrations of Easter, and those who were against this idea, came to Rome to discuss the issue with him. They needed his “yay” or “nay” to either leave the status quo as it was, or to enforce a common standard on every Diocese of the Church. Some of them were hoping that he would just leave the status quo as it was. When he surprised them and insisted on a Sunday celebration of Easter, they went against him, and he was all for excommunicating them. (Ultimately, they were not excommunicated, but it was because other Bishops interceded with Victor to ask him to change his mind - there was no question about whether he had the authority to do this, or not (which he would not have had, if in fact those people had not been under his jurisdiction, as would have been the case, if Victor had only been a local Bishop in Rome. Those other Bishops had to intercede with Victor because Victor was of a higher rank than they were - otherwise, they could have just overruled him regarding those who were in their own jurisdictions, without discussing it with him at all.)

Do you have a source for this?
THIS is what happened according to the source I am using.
We differ sharply on many details and I really would like to know where you are getting your information.

This is from Eusebius.

Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

1. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

 

[Nicea325]

I have been discussing Victor. Who “went to Rome”? Do tell. Please. Some names. I gave a quote about what occured. Give the citation to support this view.

Again,you failed to answer me. Here I will rephrase for you.Why would ANY bishop even need to OBEY the Bishop of Rome? Why would even get the pope involved? That is the WHOLE ISSUE you keep on avoiding. Whether they went there by foot to meet the pope in person or via letter,still does not change the the question at hand: His primacy.

That is what you keep on dodging over and over.

Please! Who do you think ever went to Rome or received letters by the Roman bishop? Other bishops,not the laity.Apparently you are not familiar how the ancient church functioned. It is not like our ‘jonny-come-lately’ churches of today founded 1500+ years later.

Give the citations? Oh dear! Apparently you do not read everything in its entirety. As I said, I am not going to write an entire sources here and I gave you enough sources,so quit making circular arguments. Now since you do not read everything, I will explain it in simple terms.

Pope Victor decided, therefore, to bring about unity in the observance of the Easter festival and to persuade the Quartodecimans to join in the general practice of the Church. He wrote, therefore, to Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus and induced the latter to call together the bishops of the province of Asia in order to discuss the matter with them. This was done; but in the letter sent by Polycrates to Pope Victor he declared that he firmly held to the Quartoceciman custom observed by so many celebrated and holy bishops of that region.

Now AGAIN,why would ANY bishop,if all are equal,even need to listen to the Roman bishop? Why not just settle the matter in-house? Who was the Roman bishop to decide to bring UNITY? Finally,if the bishop of Rome had no authority to excommunicate ANY bishop or diocese,show me the letters from one bishop stating the Roman bishop has no such authority to make decisions for other dioceses on doctrinal issues or observances of feast days?
.
Again, Irenaeus persuaded or intervened whatever word use choose Victor NEVER excommunicated any region. What part of my list of sources do you not comprehend? As I said I am not going to write an entire book on a complex matter.

Now since you truly believe the Church of Rome had no primacy,then you provide the overhwhelming proof it was never happened in such a fashion? I think we Catholics have said enough and I even gave you sources,which you like most non-Catholics never bother to read and it shows 90% of the time.

I am not going to go in circles with you. I gave you a case where it involved an other bishop and the Roman bishop,but you simply blew it off. Either read the sources yourself or stop asking the same stuff over and over.

Now again,if the pope had NO PRIMACY,then explain the following case:

St.Cyprian (d.258) ASKS the pope (Stephen I (254-257) to INTERVENE in the AFFAIR of Marcian, bishop of Arles,who was a Novatian;he URGES the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and to see to it that a Catholic bishop be appointed.
Source: The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue

Again,if the Bishop of Rome had no PRIMACY,why ask for intervention or urge?

 

[Nicea325]

**This is from Eusebius.

Quote:
Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

1. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

__________________**

And you keep on thinking Eusebius is the only credible source. You do know there are many other ancient sources-right? Why can’t you go outside one source?

I gave you many sources you can look up or buy,it is getting really old now with you.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Pope Victor decided, therefore, to bring about unity in the observance of the Easter festival and to persuade the Quartodecimans to join in the general practice of the Church. He wrote, therefore, to Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus and induced the latter to call together the bishops of the province of Asia in order to discuss the matter with them. This was done; but in the letter sent by Polycrates to Pope Victor he declared that he firmly held to the Quartoceciman custom observed by so many celebrated and holy bishops of that region.
Now AGAIN,why they need to listen to the pope in Rome?
Again, Irenaeus persuaded or intervened whatever word use choose Victor NEVER excommunicated any region. What part of my list of sources do you not comprehend? As I said I am not going to write an entire book on a complex matter.

This not what occured. I have given the primary source of what we know. Our source does not say that. Baring another patristic source that gives another perspective, why should I believe this? The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia does not cite a source for their differeing interpretation of what is said by the person who wrote about it. That is not what Eusebius writes and says and unless you have another source, this is just pure spin. That is why historians look to sources to determine these things. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that its source is Eusebius but then adds details as is apparent when comparing the two. Where does Eusebius claim or state anything as fanciful as the Bishop of Rome “calling” this? Show me. If you cannot, then take it back. I would do the same. I am not going to go onto other historical events until those reading understand that our primary source does not agree with what has been stated.

 

[Rightlydivide]

**This is from Eusebius.

Quote:
Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

1. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

__________________**

And you keep on thinking Eusebius is the only credible source. You do know there are many other ancient sources-right? Why can’t you go outside one source?

I gave you many sources you can look up or buy,it is getting really old now with you.

Exactly!! His statement does not agree with what you said.
Give me an ancient source. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not cite one as it says

These words of the Father of Church History, followed by some extracts which he makes from the controversial letters of the time, tell us almost all that we know concerning the paschal controversy in its first stage.

 

[Nicea325]

Okay let me rephrase for you.

Who in the HECK was the Bishop of Rome to EXCOMMUNICATE anyone,if he has no primacy? Show me one writing from Eusebius where he makes a big old stink Victor has no such authority to do it? Or how about another bishop? Polycarp of Ephesus?

The issue at stake here is PRIMACY,not the all the details of the Easter issue and who said what or did this or that.

Again,primacy is always the issue with non-Catholics.

I am curious to know why you never bother to read my case involving another bishop who is URGING the Bishop of Rome to EXCOMMUNICATE another bishop?

Again,if the Bishop of Rome has no PRIMACY,why even BOTHER ASKING him to excommunicate another bishop?

Forget all the details or interpretations of the Easter matter.

That is my question to you,which you ignore time and time again?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;6470285:

Okay let me rephrase for you.
Who in the HECK was the Bishop of Rome to EXCOMMUNICATE anyone,if he has no primacy? Show me one writing from Eusebius where he makes a big old stink Victor has no such authority to do it? Or how about another bishop? Polycarp of Ephesus?
The issue at stake here is PRIMACY,not the all the details of the Easter issue and who said what or did this or that.
Again,primacy is always the issue with non-Catholics.
I am curious to know why you never bother to read my case involving another bishop who is URGING the Bishop of Rome to EXCOMMUNICATE another bishop?
Again,if the Bishop of Rome has no PRIMACY,why even BOTHER ASKING him to excommunicate another bishop?
Forget all the details or interpretations of the Easter matter.
That is my question to you,which you ignore time and time again?

I do not know if anyone has followed our conversation but I hope so. We have spent the last posts discussing some specific claims made by both jmcrae and Nicea325. This incident with Victor has been used as an example of primacy. It was said by them that Victor called people together to Rome and they came to him. That did not happen. Now, I am to forget the details about what we just talked about.
Despite efforts to broaden the topic of Victor, I have stuck to the immediate topic. I know how to have these kinds of conversations. I keep the emotions out of them and stick to the facts. So I guess Victor is done except for the issue of how could Victor excommunicate someone without primacy.
Instantly, students of history will know that excommunication and threats of excommunication are not uncommon. During the Great Schism, the Pope was excommunicated by Michael I. So this assertion that anyone who excommunicates anyone asserts primacy is faulty.
Once again, in turning for one final time to the excommunication issued by Victor, this occured and all it proves is that the Bishop of Rome can break unity (the definition in the text of excommunication) with other churches. Victor had every right to break his ties and unity with the rest of the church in Asia. The bishops did not assert he did not have that right because he did. But that does not prove primacy at all. You apparently, which correct me if I am wrong, believe that the ability to excommunicate indicates a primacy as it relates specifically to inter-church relations. This view would then not take into account examples of other bishops, the most famous of which I cited, doing the same to other churches.
I believe the central issue is that you do not understand excommunication and what that means. Please correct me if I am mistaken about your view. Are you under the impression that ONLY bishops who hold primacy can excommunicate (break the common unity in this context)?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6470314:

I believe the central issue is that you do not understand excommunication and what that means

.

No offense,but that remark is almost laughable. I being a Catholic my entire life and studying the early church for years now,after reading and studying scores of anicent writings. But as a Catholic I do not understand excommunication,but non-Catholics know better? I love how non-Catholics always know more what the RCC teaches,then Catholic themselves.

**Please correct me if I am mistaken about your view. Are you under the impression that ONLY bishops who hold primacy can excommunicate (break the common unity in this context)? **

Yes, you are gravely mistaken on the entire issue of primacy. One more time,why did you IGNORE the case of ONE bishop URGING the bishop of Rome to EXCOMMUNICATE another bishop? If ALL are equals,then why URGE an entire different bishop (Rome) to excommunicate a bishop from a different region? As I have stated,those type of cases happen time and time again in early church history. Problem is the majority of non-Catholics I knew or know simply brush it aside because it conflicts with their novelties.But what is even more amazing is those who oppose it rarely provide evidence where bishops explicitly DENY the Bishop of Rome had a primacy. Us Catholics provide our evidence of primacy,so burden of proof is on the opposers,not the supporters.

AGAIN…you NEVER answer what I have asked you in several different forms.

If ALL bishops are equals with no one having a primacy,then why is it case after case throughout early church history,bishops URGE & ASK for INTERVENTION from the Bishop of Rome? Read the early church writings involving such cases.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;6470776:

Nicea325;6470314:

I believe the central issue is that you do not understand excommunication and what that means

.

No offense,but that remark is almost laughable. I being a Catholic my entire life and studying the early church for years now,after reading and studying scores of anicent writings. But as a Catholic I do not understand excommunication,but non-Catholics know better? I love how non-Catholics always know more what the RCC teaches,then Catholic themselves.

**Please correct me if I am mistaken about your view. Are you under the impression that ONLY bishops who hold primacy can excommunicate (break the common unity in this context)? **

Yes, you are gravely mistaken on the entire issue of primacy. One more time,why did you IGNORE the case of ONE bishop URGING the bishop of Rome to EXCOMMUNICATE another bishop? If ALL are equals,then why URGE an entire different bishop (Rome) to excommunicate a bishop from a different region? As I have stated,those type of cases happen time and time again in early church history. Problem is the majority of non-Catholics I knew or know simply brush it aside because it conflicts with their novelties.But what is even more amazing is those who oppose it rarely provide evidence where bishops explicitly DENY the Bishop of Rome had a primacy. Us Catholics provide our evidence of primacy,so burden of proof is on the opposers,not the supporters.

AGAIN…you NEVER answer what I have asked you in several different forms.

If ALL bishops are equals with no one having a primacy,then why is it case after case throughout early church history,bishops URGE & ASK for INTERVENTION from the Bishop of Rome? Read the early church writings involving such cases.

Are we done with Victor?

If we are going to move onto another case, please clearly state your assertion on one specific case. Although you should answer my question first.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually…just for historical accuracy’s sake, Constantine tabled the Edict of Milan which assured religious tolerance. Emperor Theodosius I was the one that made Christianity the official state religion.

Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus

Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus[3] (27 February c. 272[2] – 22 May 337), commonly known in English as Constantine I, Constantine the Great, or (among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians) Saint Constantine (pronounced /ˈkɒnstəntaɪn/ or /ˈkɒnstəntiːn/), was Roman emperor from 306, and the sole holder of that office from 324 until his death in 337. Best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor,[notes 1] Constantine reversed the persecutions of his predecessor, Diocletian, and issued (with his co-emperor Licinius) the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed religious tolerance throughout the empire. The Byzantine liturgical calendar, observed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine rite, lists both Constantine and his mother Helena as saints. Although he is not included in the Latin Church’s list of saints, which does recognize several other Constantines as saints, he is revered under the title “The Great” for his contributions to Christianity.

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors

**When Diocletian and Maximian announced their retirement in 305, the problem posed by the Christians was unresolved and the persecution in progress. Upon coming to power Constantine unilaterally ended all persecution in his territories, even providing for restitution. His personal devotions, however, he offered first to Mars and then increasingly to Apollo, reverenced as Sol Invictus. **

Catholic Encylopedia

Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine’s decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors

Catholic Encylopedia

Catholic encyclopedia has essentially contradicted the others.

---

The final death knell of the Pagan faith came only a generation later, under the rule of Theodosius. An ardent Christian, and recognizing the amazing growth of the still relatively young faith, Theodosius and his western counterpart Gratian, recognized Christianity as the official religion of the Empire in 380 AD**. Gratian too, likely at the partial behest of Theodosius refused the title of Pontifex Maximus (head priest) and it was bestowed instead on the Catholic Pope in Rome. *

unrv.com/culture/christianity.php

 

[Nicea325]

**Are we done with Victor? **

Unbelievable! uch:The more you refuse to answer the more it proves my point is correct and I have history to back it up.

I’ll ask you ONE more time:

If Victor has NO primacy at all,then explain how he ALONE had the jurisdiction to EXCOMMUNICATE an entire region? Where is the protest by ONE bishop stating he had no such authority? As I have said numerous times to you,go and study the writings of the early church.

**If we are going to move onto another case, please clearly state your assertion on one specific case. Although you should answer my question first. **

Oh I see! Cannot answer,so let us turn around and ask a question.

ONE MORE time,St.Irenaeus is the one who changed,persuaded,whatever words you want to use, Victor’s mind about excommunication. I am not going to say the samething over and over.

 

[AmateurPianist]

In regards to the books of the bible, do you believe that the Catholic Church was not the “true” church anymore/had lost the true faith by the 300s and had no part in putting together the bible? If so, what do you make of the “other” books of the bible, ie the gospels of Mary, Thomas, Phillip, Acts of Peter, etc…? Are these just as valid? Should they have been included? Did the Catholic Church have the right to exclude them? Where they divinely inspired to do so? (Just a question I have had for a while, no bad intentions here)

Sorry to interrupt the conversation, but since I am “Bible Only” (at least some definitions of it)

In regards to the books of the Bible, I do believe God allows man to join Him in the work that God is doing. When that occurs, the results happen to be correct. Nevertheless, when that occurs the credit goes to God, not to man nor a church organization.

I believe this is the process that happened with the books of the Bible. The very same process continues to happen today irrespective of church organization.

I sort of don’t get the point of the questions on whether the Catholic church was the true church and how that is relevant to the question. But maybe I am missing something.

Now back to your conversations. Sorry for interrupting.

 

[Rightlydivide]

**Are we done with Victor? **

Unbelievable! uch:The more you refuse to answer the more it proves my point is correct and I have history to back it up.

I’ll ask you ONE more time:

If Victor has NO primacy at all,then explain how he ALONE had the jurisdiction to EXCOMMUNICATE an entire region? Where is the protest by ONE bishop stating he had no such authority? As I have said numerous times to you,go and study the writings of the early church.

**If we are going to move onto another case, please clearly state your assertion on one specific case. Although you should answer my question first. **

Oh I see! Cannot answer,so let us turn around and ask a question.

ONE MORE time,St.Irenaeus is the one who changed,persuaded,whatever words you want to use, Victor’s mind about excommunication. I am not going to say the samething over and over.

Victor could break off his unity with those churches. He could excommunicate them as it exists in that sense. I have stated that. That does not take primacy over another region but is a statement about what he should not do. The bishops stated “it was not to their liking”.
I am happy to answer any question although you did not answer mine. Mine was this

Are you under the impression that ONLY bishops who hold primacy can excommunicate (break the common unity in this context)?

Nothing said he “alone” had jurisdiction. Where does the document say that? It does not. Please prove that he alone had the jurisdiction if that is your assertion. If you are claiming that only the Bishop of Rome can break unity with another jurisdiction, please clearly state such.

 

[Nicea325]

Victor could break off his unity with those churches. He could excommunicate them as it exists in that sense. I have stated that. That does not take primacy over another region but is a statement about what he should not do. The bishops stated “it was not to their liking”.

Excuse me? Simply because it was not to their liking the pope’s decision on Easter rebukes the entire primacy issue? Sorry,but it does not any shape or form. It does not take primacy over another region? Evidently you are not a faithful of theCatholic/Orthodox church or any ancient liturgical church.

I am happy to answer any question although you did not answer mine. Mine was this

Quote:
Are you under the impression that ONLY bishops who hold primacy can excommunicate (break the common unity in this context)?

Bishops who only hold a primacy? Where do you get the impression or idea several bishops held primacy? Evidently you have not studied early church history.The issue of PRIMACY has always been tied to the bishop of Rome,not several bishops. You confuse the HONOR with PRIMACY.

**Nothing said he “alone” had jurisdiction. Where does the document say that? It does not. Please prove that he alone had the jurisdiction if that is your assertion. If you are claiming that only the Bishop of Rome can break unity with another jurisdiction, please clearly state such. **

Oh boy! Here we go again…round and round and round in circles.
And where does the document state the bishopric is a democracy where they took a vote?We are talking about the bishops of the early church,not your novelty of today’s non-Catholic churches were it is a consensus or people vote.

And once again,you IGNORE my other historical case where a bishop from ANOTHER region URGES,ASKS for INTERVENTION from the BISHOP OF ROME to excommunicate another bishop and REPLACE him with another bishop? Want ANOTHER case?

If NO primacy exists with ROME,why TIME after TIME throughout the early church are these cases brought to Rome’s attention?

ONE MORE TIME…why BOTHER even bringing up the entire ISSUE to another BISHOP hundreds and hundreds of miles away who mentioned,planned,etc,etc of EXCOMMUNICATING another region? Why wasn’t the MATTER settled within each bishop’s diocese? Why bring Rome into the mix as it was many TIMES throughout history.

That is what you have failed to answer me.

If ‘several’ bishops held primacy as so believe,then how could another bishop with primacy excommunicate another bishop with primacy?