Tons of excuses becauses and buts. More of your Vatican-worshiping garbage.

By the way Vlad I hate when rebuttals are three times as long as the orginally posted article. I backed off yesterday because I didnt have 6 hours to answer all these excuses so Ill cover a few.

Quote:
Untrue. It is clear that Pope Clement, in the first century, believed he had much greater authority than other bishops or else he would never have written to the Corinthians telling them what to do.


Just because he wrote the Corinthians to give advice or what to do, does not prove greater authority then other bishops or that he was claiming himself to be their authority.

Thank goodness for the internet.

www.catholic-forum.com/sa...c14001.htm

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
by Pope Saint Clement I of Rome



Quote:
You were submissive to your officials and paid the older men among you the respect due to them.


SUBMISSIVE TO YOUR officials.

Quote:
Day and night you vied with one another in behalf of the entire brotherhood, to further the salvation of the full number of His elect by your compassion and conscientiousness. Guileless and sincere you were, and bore one another no malice. The very thought of insubordination and schism was an abomination to you.


ENTIRE BROTHERHOOD--NOT HEY IM THE POPE LISTEN TO ME.

Looks like he was just playing peacemaker--not weilding authority.

Quote:
It is right and holy, therefore, brethren, that we should be submissive to God rather than follow those who through arrogance and insubordination are the ringleaders in a quarrel fomented by detestable jealousy. No


This is a Christian to another speaking of brotherhood and exhortations to make peace among one another in the Christian faith. I see no evidence of self glory or claims to power--Papal power.

Quote:
Let us, then, quickly blot out this blemish and fall on our knees before the Master, and with tears implore Him to have mercy on us and be reconciled to us and restore us to the venerable and holy practice of brotherly love


Quote:
Let us, then, ask pardon for our waywardness and for what we have done yielding to any wiles of the adversary


It says US and WE. Get it? It doesnt say listen to me or else like later Papal documents. This is obvious this is prior to the time the Roman Pope went on a power trip. This guy sounds humble and just trying to make peace.

It is so obvious your history is BIASED BEYOND BELIEF> Reminds me of liberals who write books about how evil Columbus was.



Quote:
"Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia,"

So this guy relies on an encyclopedia for his research?


WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ENCYCLOPEDIA? If you can find the information there why not? You are such a SNOB.
People who write encyclopedias have to do extensive research.
Quote:
No, Matthew 16 is, in fact, about the establishment of Peter as the Rock, a prophecy of it. And what proof is there that Calixtus was the first to talk about Matthew 16?


I am sure there had to be a beginning to the power trip the RCC went on. Before hand all bishops saw themselves as equal. There is no Roman Pope in the Book of Revelation where Jesus talks to SEVEN churches. Ive asked that question many time and excuses have been made but no real explanation.

This Greek rite church site admits it (spelling of name is differnet Callistus equals Calixtus. This also backs up the claim about Tertullian. Catholics quote Tertullian when it serves their interests so dont try and play that off as something the other side has never done.

www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/...on1_2.html

Church of Greece website, so this is far from "fundamentalists or AntiCatholic" stuff.

Quote:
Despite the great importance Matthew 16.18-19 was to acquire in the Scriptural arsenal of the Roman Church, no bishop of Rome appealed to this passage as a Dominical warrant of papal authority until early in the third century, when Callistus (ca. 217-22),(12) it seems, did so to justify his extension of penance to members of his community who had been guilty of fornication or adultery, or even, it would appear, of murder or apostasy, all of which had previously been regarded as the deadliest and most unforgivable of sins. In discussing this incident, Tertullian (d. after 220) insisted that the words of Jesus in question applied only to Peter and not in any sense to Callistus, whom he ironically dubbed pontifex maximus, quod est episcopus episcoporum ("chief pontiff, i.e., bishop of bishops";) , epithets which in point of fact correspond well with the position which the bishops of Rome later aspired to and eventually attained in the West.


Quote:
Notice: Calixtus became pope AFTER Tertullian became a heretic so whatever Tertullian said about him is not particularly important now is it?


Always pretty convienent!

The fact remains as you quibble about Tertullian that there was no CLAIM OF POWER BASED ON MATTHEW 16:18 UNTIL CALIXTUS!!!!!!!!!

If you want to dispute this, find a a written speech or paper by a previous Pope, I want a link or an exact book title and page---and post where they refer to Matt 16:18 claiming the keys or Papal power.


Quote:
Maybe we don't find this because it never happened. Here are the actual details about the council: "Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At this Council, attended by about 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church), Pope Leo's Tome against Monophysitism and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced with the pronouncement:

"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 ).


Saying Peter has spoken through Leo is claiming this Papal power.
Quote:
Really? So Catholic apologists would insult a CATHOLIC SAINT? No, I don't think so. This is getting nuttier all the time. One must remember that Augustine also said:

"Peter, who had confessed Him the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built." (Augustine, In Ps. lxix. n. 4, Tom. iv. p. 1020, ed. Bened. 1836) in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri -- the Titles abd Perogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns and Oates, 1879), 23.


Come on in the above he says the Rock is JESUS. Even the statement you provide up above, has NOTHING to do with Papal power.

www.justforcatholics.org/a124.htm

This writing makes it clear that Augustine knew the rock was not Peter himself but the FAITH:

We who are Christians in name and in deed do not believe in Peter, but in him in whom Peter believed; we have been drawn to Christ by Peter's exhortations, not drugged by his incantations; we have been helped by his services, not hoodwinked by his sorceries. Christ was Peter's teacher in that faith which leads to everlasting life. The same Christ is our teacher too.

Source: St. Augustine's City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 54, edited by Vernon J. Bourke, Image Books Doubleday, Copyright 1958, ISBN 0-385-02910-1, bearing the Imprimatur of Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, page 425.


I know Catholics like to quote Augustine a lot because he says CATHOLIC a lot, but it is anything but ROman Catholic, it means UNIVERSAL church.


Quote:
Incorrect. All the popes had authority whether forgeries existed or not. Where is the evidence for these accusations anyway?


These forgeries exsist. Why did they even need forgeries but to cement their own power. This is one remainder to that we cant depend on ECF writings in total. That scripture which is inspired and protected by God is to be the first authority. The fact that so many forgeries exsist cements the position that this was about deception and the claim of power. Because why write so many forgeries if they already have proof for their power?

www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/....xv.v.html

"
Quote:
Yes, actually there was. We know the following about the Council of Nicea: "The Council of Nicaea 325 AD WAS a Catholic Council: Sometimes the absurd claim is made that the church of Nicaea in 325 was not the Catholic Church. These are the typical arguments, and the appropriate Catholic refutation.


I got this from Catholic site

www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Quote:
The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members.


This was during the time where Constantine gave himself the title Pontificus Maximus. Sylvester was far from the one in charge.

Quote:
"Response 4: About 180 St. Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul wrote:
"By pointing out the apostolic tradition and creed which has been brought down to us by a succession of bishops in the greatest, most ancient and well-known church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome,


There is no evidence of Peter or Paul ever having been at Rome except to be martyred. I know I have posted on that before. Another Catholic myth.


Quote:
"Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Romes papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus highest priest."

Incorrect. The Pontifex Maximus title at the time of Constantine was a title held exclusively BY THE PAGAN ROMAN EMPERORS and had nothing to do with Christianity.


OH GIVE ME A BREAK! IT WAS LATER GIVEN TO POPES! I EVEN POSTED SOMETHING WHERE THE TITLE IS USED FOR POPE JOHN PAUL II ON COIN and a DOCUMENT!

That is really covering your tracks...Vlad...has nothing to with Christianity..>Sure whatever you say....:rolleyes .


Proof that IT DID:

www.eurocollections.com/c...roduct=494

Quote:
The reverse depicts a figure of Pope John Paul II seen in the background against the stylised Holy Gate of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Above in a semicircle an inscription: PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.

The following text is taken directly from the certificate of authenticity that comes in the presentation case with the gold edition of this coin.

John Paul II is the first non-Italian pope in 455 years, the first Polish pope and surely the first Slavonic pope. According to ancient Latin formula a pope is called Pontifex Maximus, ie. Supreme Priest, Arch Priest


and www.tc.umn.edu/~tran0247/mjc/papa.html

UNBELIEVEABLE.

Thats what I mean by YOUR EXCUSES.

Quote:
Clearly Schroeder is wrong again. How could Sylvester have the title when it had not been given up by the emperors yet? Did Schroeder do any research at all?


Constantine was the REAL POWER back then. How hard is that to understand. Its already been admitted Sylvester didnt even leave Rome to go to the council.

Quote:
Incorrect. These episcopates did not emerge in that century except for Constantinople because Constantinople was a new city and the new seat of imperial authority so Constantine asked that a great episcopate be established there. The others already existed and were very famous. And they held great authority.


AUTHORITY that was equal before Constantine and friends got their hands in the mix!


Quote:
No, there was no attempted seizure of Christendom by Pope Siricius. In 385 a bishop, named Himerius, asked Siricius, because of his authority to resolve questions he had about practice. He did so. That is hardly an attempted seizure of Christendom.


He WROTE THE FIRST PAPAL DECRETAL. He did some of the first disciplinary actions excommunicating people and more.

From Catholic friendly site:www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp38.htm

Quote:
Siricius is noted for being the author of the first papal decretal which has survived. There were earlier ones, but this is the first that has come down to modern times. A decretal contains an authoritative decision on questions of discipline.


Quote:
The occasion of this decretal was a letter from Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain, who wrote to Pope Damasus asking for his decision in several matters of discipline. Siricius answered on February 10, and ordered that his reply should be communicated to the neighboring bishops. Among other things the Pope declared that converted Arians did not have to be rebaptized and that priests should be celibate.

On January 6, 386, Pope Siricius held a synod at Rome, attended by eighty bishops, at which a number of disciplinary decisions were made. The Pope sent these decisions to the bishops of North Africa. He also sent out a letter to various churches urging the election of worthy bishops and priests.


Looks like he was started to use authority to me. He even started making decisions for bishops in Africa and letters to other churches.

Quote:
This is absurd. This is what Chalcedon said about Leo: Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At this Council, attended by about 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church),...blah blah...blah...Clearly, Schroeder is wrong YET again.....


Hey I found the site you copied and pasted from:

www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

Try and put some links up ok

This sounds pretty familiar I want to know what is your words and what isnt. That is ONLY FAIR.

Quote:
Now, many anti-Catholic scholars have tried to chip away at the significance of this statement. However, when compared to other contemporary writings, the meaning of the Council Fathers becomes abundantly clear:


Quote:
Clearly there was a papacy or else there could have been no Pope Leo! How can Schroeder simply make this stuff up and not realize that it doesnt even make sense?

What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of apostolic succession and an unbroken chain of popes stretching all the way back to Peter.


It is obvious even if one knows French history that there were AntiPopes and more throughout history. There is NOT an unbroken line of succession.

There were seperations as a result of the COuncil of Chalcedon:

www.touregypt.net/chiste4.htm

Quote:
In the end, the Council of Chalcedon led, as the First Council of Ephesus did before it, to a lasting separation.

The non-Chalcedonian Christians of Egypt eventually formed what is known today as the Coptic Orthodox Church, currently with over nine million members in Egypt alone, and many more all over the world, including the United States, Europe, and Asia


So claims Pope Leo had power over everyone..>FALSE.

Was Pope Leo the ONLY POPE?

NO FALSE.

www.orthodox.co.uk/council.htm

Quote:
Dioscoros, the formidable Pope of Alexandria interested himself in the affair, and the eunuch Chrysaphios influenced Emperor Theodosius II to the end that a retrial was ordered, and a council convened at Ephesus. The Roman Popes legates arrived at Ephesus carrying his Tome, formally a letter to Flavian


As you read this you can see the Emperors have more power then the Popes and even Diocscoros was disposed. But at the point the Roman Pope wasnt the ONLY one.



Quote:
What Gregory denied was a title given to him, or applied to him, by a Archbishop John the Faster, Universal Bishop. Please note that the title was Universal Bishop and not Universal Priest (Pontifex Maximus doesnt mean Universal Priest either. Schroeder needs to study some Latin so he wont make these basic mistakes).


He probably considered universal bishop not high enough a title.
Quote:
Incorrect. The Donation of Constantine was a forgery made by an unknown person or persons to confirm what already existed.


Yet another one of your excuses.

Confirm what already exsisted? Why would someone go to the trouble?


Quote:
Incorrect. The Popes always pointed to Christ as the establisher of the papacy and only acknowledged the Donation of Constantine as the recognition granted it by the state and that recognition was real and genuine even if the document was not. Schroeder, not surprisingly ignores that obvious fact.


Kind of scary you may excuses for a church that has claimed its power through forgeries. They wrote them for a reason, not just for the heck of it!

From Fordham university website:

www.fordham.edu/halsall/s...const.html

Quote:
This is perhaps the most famous forgery in history. For centuries, until Lorenzo Valla proved it was forgery during the Renaissance it provied the basis for papal territorial and jurisdictional claims in Italy. Probably at least a first draft of it was made shortly after the middle of the eighth century in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with the Frankish Mayor of the Palace, Pepin the Short. The Pope crossed the Alps to anoint the latter as king in 754, thereby enabling, the Carolingian family, to which Pepin belonged, to supplant the old Merovingian royal line which had become decadent and powerless and to become in law as well as in fact rulers of the Franks. In return, Pepin seems to have promised to give to the Pope those lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from Byzantium. The promise was fulfilled in 756. Constantine's alleged gift made it possible to interpret Pepin's grant not as a benefaction but as a restoration.


Claiming land and power over kings.

so many lies and more that



Quote:
This happened so frequently that for 700 years the Greeks referred to Rome as "the home of forgeries


Peter de Rosa, "Vicars of Christ" (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000 p.79

With all the lies why do you think the Eastern schism happened??!


Quote:

Thats absurd. The Church ALWAYS had authority over itself. The Church never had and never claimed authority over kings except in religious matters.


Give me a break...

Ever heard of interdicts?

They would not only punish the king but the entire country

www.christianchronicler.c...apacy.html

Quote:
The interdict served as the pope's second weapon. Some scholars call it an "ecclesiastical lockout." What excommunication was to individuals, the interdict was to an entire nation. A papal interdict suspended all public worship and withdrew the sacraments. After the interdict went into effect, Citizens usually pressured their rulers to repent or abdicate. Occasionally citizens overthrew their rulers. Pope Innocent III utilized or threatened interdicts 85 times during his papacy.




They have always butted their noses in political business even as recently as the Iraq war and now with their kissy-face with the United Nations--where they wish to destroy the sovereignity of nations and donations to the ICC.

Quote:
And if the Church had absolute authority over kings then why did the Investiture Struggle ever happen? Why did King Philip the Fair kidnap Pope Boniface VIII? Why did the popes need the Normans to protect their elections from imperial and even Roman political interference? Has Schroeder ever even attempted to research this?


Sometimes kings fought back, I suppose King Philip the Fair did.

Of course the Kings fought back, that is what the Investiture struggle was about. People trying to claim power including the Popes who you make way too many excuses for.

Quote:
The Investiture Struggle lasted until 1122. Actually, similar issues were raised in France and England, and compromises were reached there a bit earlier. But the agreement of 1122, also a compromise, is the traditional ending date, so I'll stay with that. The Struggle actually masked a deeper issue: who was the ultimate authority in Christendom--pope or king (or emperor)? So, even though the question of who performed the ceremony of investiture and what it signified was more or less settled by 1122, conflicts between popes and kings were by no means over. That conflict directly affected the nature and course and timing of various crusades.


Quote:
The Papacy is not and was not a secular source. The Pope was the Bishop of Rome. That is not a secular source.


Whatever you say :rolleyes , they certainly got involved in many nonspiritual things.

Quote:
No where. Constantine, by the way, tried to exert authority over the Church and the popes rejected his attempts!


He was in charge. Remember who went to the council and who called for it..and who stayed home?

Quote:
No, it isnt. It is proof that a forged document was believed in because it reflected what actually already existed. The Donation of Constantine was not the founder of the papacy Christ was.


This has got to be one of the silliest things Ive ever heard on this board. They used these documents to claim power land, money and more. Give me a break!

Quote:
And what does it say that Protestants so readily believe that which is so easily demonstrated to be untrue? Do Protestants naturally gravitate to dishonest renderings of history?


Your history is so biased and makes so many excuses....its not even funny. So many holes.