Q
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Lutherans and Anglicans did not “evolve” they split at a specific point in time. Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides are heretical to early church teaching. King Henry VIII broke from the Pope, Vicar of Christ to start his own “Anglican” or English church not answerable to Rome and it’s teachings. Apostolic succession refers to the laying of hands by Bishops, of whom the Apostles were the first, for priestly ordination.You are wrong. The Early church was the Early church. parts of what is thr Roman church today did evolve from the Early church as did the Orthodox church, the Lutheran church and the Anglican church. All have apostolic succession.
You would really be more credible if you would research your history a little better before you posted. Many Protestants will admit that the Early Church was the Catholic Church, with the Pope as its head. They maintain the the Church had come into error, and needed Reform, hence “Reformation.” Unfortunately these “churches of me” had a way of evolving and taking on lives of their own, splitting, splitting, until there ar 33,000+ denominations each claiming to have Truth.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
There have been many, many heresies and schisms that have wounded the Mystical Body of Christ. I will describe the largest ones - principally those the exist to this day.
In the beginning, there was only one Church - the Catholic Church.
In 451, after the Council of Chalcedon, several of the Oriental Churches rejected the Church’s teachings and schismed. They are generally referred to as the Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonians. They retained their Apostolic Succession (their denial was in the Council’s teachings on the two natures of Christ).
In 1054, the date generally accepted as the concrete point of division, the Eastern Churches schismed, primarily over the issue of the Papacy (and a handful of others). They retained their Apostolic Succession.
In the beginning of the 16th century, a Catholic monk violated his vows to God and broke off from the Church. He rejected a number of doctrines (i.e. sacerdotal priesthood; authority of Tradition and the Magisterium; etc.) and created a few of his own, unknown of until then (i.e., sola-fide; sola-scriptura; etc.). He started his own ecclesial community - known today as the Lutherans. He also started a whole wave of other dissenters and heretics that started their own communities. It was in their rejection of the sacerdotal priesthood and of the Sacrament of Holy Orders that they do not, not any Protestant group, have valid Apostolic Succession.
Very shortly after Luther’s rebellion, King Henry VIII of England broke with the Church because he wanted to divorce his current wife (she wasn’t his first) and marry another in the hopes of bearing a male heir. To this end, he started the Anglican Church. At this point they had Apostolic Succession. Later, they changed their rite of ordination to the point that it was no longer a valid Sacrament - I think there was some rejection of the sacerdotal nature and of sacrifice (I’d have to research it a bit to verify). By the time the rite was restored, there was no longer any validly ordained Bishops to perpetuate the Succession, so they ceased to be a Church and became a ecclesial community that does not have valid Apostolic Succesion.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have Apostolic Succession. The Lutheran and Anglican communities (nor any other Protestant group) do not.You are wrong. The Early church was the Early church. parts of what is thr Roman church today did evolve from the Early church as did the Orthodox church, the Lutheran church and the Anglican church. All have apostolic succession.
There have been many, many heresies and schisms that have wounded the Mystical Body of Christ. I will describe the largest ones - principally those the exist to this day.
In the beginning, there was only one Church - the Catholic Church.
In 451, after the Council of Chalcedon, several of the Oriental Churches rejected the Church’s teachings and schismed. They are generally referred to as the Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonians. They retained their Apostolic Succession (their denial was in the Council’s teachings on the two natures of Christ).
In 1054, the date generally accepted as the concrete point of division, the Eastern Churches schismed, primarily over the issue of the Papacy (and a handful of others). They retained their Apostolic Succession.
In the beginning of the 16th century, a Catholic monk violated his vows to God and broke off from the Church. He rejected a number of doctrines (i.e. sacerdotal priesthood; authority of Tradition and the Magisterium; etc.) and created a few of his own, unknown of until then (i.e., sola-fide; sola-scriptura; etc.). He started his own ecclesial community - known today as the Lutherans. He also started a whole wave of other dissenters and heretics that started their own communities. It was in their rejection of the sacerdotal priesthood and of the Sacrament of Holy Orders that they do not, not any Protestant group, have valid Apostolic Succession.
Very shortly after Luther’s rebellion, King Henry VIII of England broke with the Church because he wanted to divorce his current wife (she wasn’t his first) and marry another in the hopes of bearing a male heir. To this end, he started the Anglican Church. At this point they had Apostolic Succession. Later, they changed their rite of ordination to the point that it was no longer a valid Sacrament - I think there was some rejection of the sacerdotal nature and of sacrifice (I’d have to research it a bit to verify). By the time the rite was restored, there was no longer any validly ordained Bishops to perpetuate the Succession, so they ceased to be a Church and became a ecclesial community that does not have valid Apostolic Succesion.
L
Lampo
Guest
I’ve always wondered, does it really matter where the chair of Peter is located? What if a natural disaster happened tomorrow and destroyed Vatican City(God forbid) and it was moved to Madrid, Spain? Would that be the collapse of the Catholic Church? I’ve just never seen the point in this argument.
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, the Catholic Church did not collapse when the Pope moved to Avignon, France for a time. But as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome (even if a Vicar is the one who does the Episcopal duties due to the Pope’s status and other duty as Universal Pontiff), would it not be odd if the Pope is in a place other than where his See is?I’ve always wondered, does it really matter where the chair of Peter is located? What if a natural disaster happened tomorrow and destroyed Vatican City(God forbid) and it was moved to Madrid, Spain? Would that be the collapse of the Catholic Church? I’ve just never seen the point in this argument.
L
Lampo
Guest
That’s what I meant. It doesn’t really matter if the Holy See is in Rome, Venice, Portugal or Boston does it?Well, the Catholic Church did not collapse when the Pope moved to Avignon, France for a time. But as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome (even if a Vicar is the one who does the Episcopal duties due to the Pope’s status and other duty as Universal Pontiff), would it not be odd if the Pope is in a place other than where his See is?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, no matter where he resided. When the Popes moved to Avignon, they were still the Bishop of Rome, though they lived in another country.I’ve always wondered, does it really matter where the chair of Peter is located? What if a natural disaster happened tomorrow and destroyed Vatican City(God forbid) and it was moved to Madrid, Spain? Would that be the collapse of the Catholic Church? I’ve just never seen the point in this argument.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The Pope does not live in Rome and he is not an Italian citizen. He lives in another country - Vatican City State. Well, so I have been told. Is this accurate?Well, the Catholic Church did not collapse when the Pope moved to Avignon, France for a time. But as the Pope is the Bishop of Rome (even if a Vicar is the one who does the Episcopal duties due to the Pope’s status and other duty as Universal Pontiff), would it not be odd if the Pope is in a place other than where his See is?
P
patrick457
Guest
Yes. But the Vatican (meaning the City-State) only came into being in 1929 per the Lateran Treaty. Rome was formerly under the Papal States until Italy took over control of most of it and other states of Italy such as the Two Sicilies (Vatican is strictly not a remnant or a continuation of the Papal States though)thus the title of the Pope as Bishop of Rome; for Vatican Hill was within the walls and city limits of the Eternal City for 1100 years until the Lateran Treaty.The Pope does not live in Rome and he is not an Italian citizen. He lives in another country - Vatican City State. Well, so I have been told. Is this accurate?
And also, the Pope’s cathedral Church (His official Ecclesiastical Seat) was the Basilica of St. John Lateran, full title 'Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior and of Sts. John the Baptist and John the Evangelist in the Lateran (where Popes actually used to reside), which is within the walls of Rome even unto the present day. (The one who resides in the Lateran now is the Cardinal Vicar, who does the Pope’s duties as Bishop of Rome due to the Pope’s other duties) This continued until the Pope moved to Avignon, wherein the Basilica and the Palace fell into disrepair and was destroyed by two fires. From Avignon were sent some financial aid to repair the Basilica but it mostly lost its former splendor.
When the Pope moved back to Rome, the Lateran was deemed inadequate due to the accumulated damage and so the Pope moved first to Santa Maria in Trastevere, then to St. Mary Major and finally to the Vatican.
M
Montalban
Guest
None of this means that the Pope does not now live in Italy.Yes. But the Vatican (meaning the City-State) only came into being in 1929 per the Lateran Treaty. Rome was formerly under the Papal States until Italy took over control of most of it and other states of Italy such as the Two Sicilies (Vatican is strictly not a remnant or a continuation of the Papal States though)thus the title of the Pope as Bishop of Rome; for Vatican Hill was within the walls and city limits of the Eternal City for 1100 years until the Lateran Treaty.
Vatican Hill was NOT within the walls of the city of Rome for the time frame you suppose, hence when the Arabs attacked the Vatican the Pope retreated into Rome, behind the walls.
The Servian Wall did not encompass the Vatican, nor the later Aurelian Walls. The Vatican Hill is not one of the traditional seven hills of ancient Rome.
It was only protected by the walls of Rome under Pope Leo IV some time shortly after the attack by the Saracens (846).
The Lateran Palace might well sit ‘within the walls of Rome’ but is also not part of Rome nor Italy, but is an exclave of the Vatican City (soverign state).And also, the Pope’s cathedral Church (His official Ecclesiastical Seat) was the Basilica of St. John Lateran, full title 'Archbasilica of the Most Holy Savior and of Sts. John the Baptist and John the Evangelist in the Lateran (where Popes actually used to reside), which is within the walls of Rome even unto the present day. (The one who resides in the Lateran now is the Cardinal Vicar, who does the Pope’s duties as Bishop of Rome due to the Pope’s other duties) This continued until the Pope moved to Avignon, wherein the Basilica and the Palace fell into disrepair and was destroyed by two fires. From Avignon were sent some financial aid to repair the Basilica but it mostly lost its former splendor.
P
patrick457
Guest
Thus the 1100 years I said. The Vatican was outside the city (and it, along with the surrounding vicinity was infamous for being a breeding ground for snakes and insects), which is why it can feature a Necropolis and a Circus. The Vatican is officially a part of the City walls (it was part of the Rione of Borgo) until the Treaty of 1929.None of this means that the Pope does not now live in Italy.
Vatican Hill was NOT within the walls of the city of Rome for the time frame you suppose, hence when the Arabs attacked the Vatican the Pope retreated into Rome, behind the walls.
The Servian Wall did not encompass the Vatican, nor the later Aurelian Walls. The Vatican Hill is not one of the traditional seven hills of ancient Rome.
It was only protected by the walls of Rome under Pope Leo IV some time shortly after the attack by the Saracens (846).
Yes, it is. The Basilica and Palace are exclaves. Pope John XXIII had returned to the palace some pastoral functions by fixing here the seat of the Vicariate and offices of the Diocese of Rome.The Lateran Palace might well sit ‘within the walls of Rome’ but is also not part of Rome nor Italy, but is an exclave of the Vatican City (soverign state).
But, if I could ask, where did I say the Pope is a Roman (or an Italian) citizen, for that matter? (He might have in the past, but of course it is not the case now)
I just said he is the Bishop of Rome, a title which Popes had held for a long time (because of their See, obviously) even before Vatican City-State came into being.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
Not to mention that the Pope is the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, which includes more than just the city itself. So even the Vatican is a part of the Diocese of Rome.
Not to mention that the Pope is the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, which includes more than just the city itself. So even the Vatican is a part of the Diocese of Rome.
M
Montalban
Guest
From when to when?Thus the 1100 years I said.
It is however not part of RomeThe Vatican was outside the city (and it, along with the surrounding vicinity was infamous for being a breeding ground for snakes and insects), which is why it can feature a Necropolis and a Circus. The Vatican is officially a part of the City walls (it was part of the Rione of Borgo) until the Treaty of 1929.
If you acknowledge he’s not *in *Rome, then I’m happyYes, it is. The Basilica and Palace are exclaves. Pope John XXIII had returned to the palace some pastoral functions by fixing here the seat of the Vicariate and offices of the Diocese of Rome.
But, if I could ask, where did I say the Pope is a Roman (or an Italian) citizen, for that matter? (He might have in the past, but of course it is not the case now)
Sure, he’s Bishop *of *Rome, but it’s a city he’s not inI just said he is the Bishop of Rome, a title which Popes had held for a long time (because of their See, obviously) even before Vatican City-State came into being.
Interestingly Rome’s city was (post WWII) Communist for a while
so the Pope *presided *over an atheist city
M
Montalban
Guest
Hence Ignatius of Antioch addresses his letter to the head of the church that is in charge of the Romans.Hello,
Not to mention that the Pope is the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, which includes more than just the city itself. So even the Vatican is a part of the Diocese of Rome.
P
patrick457
Guest
From 869 up to 1929.From when to when?
Yes, but the Pope wasn’t residing at the Vatican then.It is however not part of Rome
I do acknowledge that he is not in Rome or in Italy for that matter.If you acknowledge he’s not *in *Rome, then I’m happy
All I’m saying is, today’s standards does not hold for the past.
Sure, he’s Bishop *of *Rome, but it’s a city he’s not in
I have an honest question. What exactly are we debating here?Interestingly Rome’s city was (post WWII) Communist for a while
so the Pope *presided *over an atheist city
If it is whether the Pope is a Roman (or Italian) citizen or not, I’ll agree that he isn’t.
But if it is whether the Pope can hold the title Bishop of Rome, then I’ll say that he does (and perhaps you do too).
I feel that we are debating about the first one. If so, what’s the point of debating it? Yes the Pope is not an Italian citizen.
M
Montalban
Guest
Check your maths.From 869 up to 1929.
That’s 1969.
Just the point he’s not *in *Rome, he’s sort of been kicked out of RomeYes, but the Pope wasn’t residing at the Vatican then.
I do acknowledge that he is not in Rome or in Italy for that matter.
All I’m saying is, today’s standards does not hold for the past.
I have an honest question. What exactly are we debating here?
That’s pretty much enough; and the fact he was once “Bishop” over a Communist city - one where the people chose that form of government.If it is whether the Pope is a Roman (or Italian) citizen or not, I’ll agree that he isn’t.
But if it is whether the Pope can hold the title Bishop of Rome, then I’ll say that he does (and perhaps you do too).
I feel that we are debating about the first one. If so, what’s the point of debating it? Yes the Pope is not an Italian citizen.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.