This Wednesday, 8/6/2008, I will be leaving communion with the Roman Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christy74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adstrinity said:
True as that may be, I’m guessing when the Church grew to include all gentiles, they needed the language to describe the roles in the Church. **Since the Roman’s were familiar with the term, ‘Pontifiex Maximus,’ Church stepped in and said, “We will show you a still more excellent way.” **I’m guessing.
Click to expand...
Good point and I believe you’re correct. Now that you mention it I seem to remember reading something along those lines exactly in the same article. They kept it intentionally.
 
adstrinity said:
True as that may be, I’m guessing when the Church grew to include all gentiles, they needed the language to describe the roles in the Church. Since the Roman’s were familiar with the term, ‘Pontifiex Maximus,’ Church stepped in and said, “We will show you a still more excellent way.” I’m guessing.
Click to expand...
No.

The pious emperor Gratian thought it unfitting for a Christian emperor.

So he gave it to Pope Damasus. It is the oldest office in Europe.

Btw, no I don’t see this as evidence of the pagan origin of the Vatican. That’s just nonsense. It is, however a use of an office that was not in the Church as a source of authority.
 
buffgbob said:
Nice to see you’re making up dogma as it is suitable to you now. Congrats, you’re officially Protestant.
Click to expand...
No. I was officially Protestant. When I left it, to suit the Church of the Fathers, one of the things I abjured was filioque, to accept the dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as confessed in the original Creed.
 
BSHoop96 said:
Once again you show that you do not know, nor understand our faith. Another case of someone hating what he “thinks is the Catholic Church.” Only you do it over…and over…and over…
Click to expand...
I don’t hate anything, much less other Christian churches.

Disagreement is not hatred or even dislike for that matter?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
No. I was officially Protestant. When I left it, to suit the Church of the Fathers, one of the things I abjured was filioque, to accept the dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as confessed in the original Creed.
Click to expand...
That explains a lot. It’s funny though, I am apart of the Church of the Fathers, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. BTW the one I belong to has never been in history anything but One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Kind of goes hand in hand with the promise of the Holy Spirit.
 
deborahaz said:
today is 8/7/08. christy left 8/6/08. shouldn’t this post be closed. it has definitely been hijacked.
Click to expand...
It really has. Big time.
Of course, on the other hand, without Sola Scriptura’s http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/4.gif prophetic utterances, how would we know whether or not we had http://bestsmileys.com/surprised/2.gif slipped through ahttp://bestsmileys.com/surprised/2.gif rip in time, and come out in the oldhttp://bestsmileys.com/hitting/22.gif Eastern Christianity http://bestsmileys.com/hitting/3.gif colise—I mean, forum. Forum. Yeah,:cool: that’s it. I:whistle: meant to say ‘forum’.

Psssst!!! Has anybody got anything to:wink: stop my nose from growing when I say ‘forum’???

Sheesh.
 
Zooey said:
It really has. Big time.
Of course, on the other hand, without Sola Scriptura’s http://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/4.gif prophetic utterances, how would we know whether or not we had http://bestsmileys.com/surprised/2.gif slipped through ahttp://bestsmileys.com/surprised/2.gif rip in time, and come out in the oldhttp://bestsmileys.com/hitting/22.gif Eastern Christianity http://bestsmileys.com/hitting/3.gif colise—I mean, forum. Forum. Yeah,:cool:
Click to expand...
Golly what did I do now???🙂

Honestly I just wanna know where you get the cool smilies from?
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Because apologists for the Vatican keep arguing ex silencio that St. Ignatius was loyal to the pope of Rome and supported infallibility, supremacy etc.
Click to expand...
Was there a time he was not loyal to the pope of Rome? Did he oppose the pope of Rome the way Orthodox Churches have been doing? If there are no records of such opposition, then the presumption that he was loyal to the pope of Rome is proper. The burden of proof of proving that he was not loyal to the pope of Rome is upon those who claim it. And I would emphasize that Ignatius’ not mentioning of Peter or any pope of Rome does not prove that claim.
 
buffgbob said:
That explains a lot. It’s funny though, I am apart of the Church of the Fathers, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. BTW the one I belong to has never been in history anything but One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Kind of goes hand in hand with the promise of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Is that the one with Honorius?

and the Great Western Schism?

and the Cavaor Synod and its aftermath?

and disregarded the Apostolic practice of married clergy?
 
w_stewart said:
Was there a time he was not loyal to the pope of Rome?
Click to expand...
That’s like asking was there any time he was not loyal to the Pope of Alexandria (btw, in both cases the titles are an anachronism, just less so with Alex). In both cases, no.
Did he oppose the pope of Rome the way Orthodox Churches have been doing?
Click to expand...
Since all the bishops of Rome (to use his correct title) up to that time were Orthodox, and he was Orthodox, what would there be to oppose?

The situation is different now.
If there are no records of such opposition, then the presumption that he was loyal to the pope of Rome is proper.
Click to expand...
No, that’s begging the question, as nothing in his letters indicate Rome had anything to do with the governance of Antioch.
The burden of proof of proving that he was not loyal to the pope of Rome is upon those who claim it.
Click to expand...
And the burden of proof that Rome was involved with the Antiochen Church, more than say the Jerusalem Church, is upon those who claim it.
And I would emphasize that Ignatius’ not mentioning of Peter or any pope of Rome does not prove that claim.
Click to expand...
Like I said: ex silencio. I wasn’t silent.

The contrast with the other epistles (where the bishop, Church order and addresses to the bishop occur) proves it.
 
w_stewart said:
Then I will revise my question. Was there a need for Ignatius to mention the papal authority?
Click to expand...
He talks about all four levels of priesthood (the royal priesthood of the Faithful included). He doesn’t speak of the supposed fifth:papacy. Hammers on the issue of unity: if the Pope of Rome was its font, there would be some mention of it.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
That’s like asking was there any time he was not loyal to the Pope of Alexandria (btw, in both cases the titles are an anachronism, just less so with Alex). In both cases, no.

Since all the bishops of Rome (to use his correct title) up to that time were Orthodox, and he was Orthodox, what would there be to oppose?

The situation is different now.
Click to expand...
Your answer is clear enough. So yes, St. Ignatius was loyal to the bishops of Rome, the successors of Peter.
No, that’s begging the question, as nothing in his letters indicate Rome had anything to do with the governance of Antioch.
Click to expand...
Look, St. Ignatius never said anything, whether in favor or against, in regard to the role of Rome in the governance of Antioch. Therefore, St. Ignatius’ works could not be used to prove any of the Catholic or Orthodox position. And yet you proclaimed here that St. Ignatius was not supportive of the papal supremacy, blah…blah…blah…

That is inconsistency on your part and a gross injustice committed against the good saint by attributing something t him which he did not do or say.
And the burden of proof that Rome was involved with the Antiochen Church, more than say the Jerusalem Church, is upon those who claim it.
Click to expand...
Sure.
The contrast with the other epistles (where the bishop, Church order and addresses to the bishop occur) proves it.
Click to expand...
The popes are the BISHOPS of Rome. Do not forget that.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
He talks about all four levels of priesthood (the royal priesthood of the Faithful included). He doesn’t speak of the supposed fifth:papacy. Hammers on the issue of unity: if the Pope of Rome was its font, there would be some mention of it.
Click to expand...
So the occupants of the bishopric of Rome were not bishops at all? Meaning, the successors of the bishop Peter were not bishops?🤷
 
w_stewart said:
Your answer is clear enough. So yes, St. Ignatius was loyal to the bishops of Rome, the successors of Peter.
Click to expand...
St. Ignatius was the successor of Peter, bishop of Antioch.
Look, St. Ignatius never said anything, whether in favor or against, in regard to the role of Rome in the governance of Antioch. Therefore, St. Ignatius’ works could not be used to prove any of the Catholic or Orthodox position. And yet you proclaimed here that St. Ignatius was not supportive of the papal supremacy, blah…blah…blah…
Click to expand...
St. Ignatius talks a LOT about Church organization, the hierarchal natue of the Church, the epsicopacy, unity, etc. The Vatican claims it is the center fo all these things. St Ignatiius don’t Rome in connection with these at all.
That is inconsistency on your part and a gross injustice committed against the good saint by attributing something t him which he did not do or say.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say he said anyting on the papacy.
Sure.
Click to expand...
The popes are the BISHOPS of Rome. Do not forget that.
Click to expand...
And the Popes are the bishops of Alexandria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top