Budge,

You wrote:

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

No Vatican-worshipping stuff in there Budge. You just can't admit what a shallow minded scholar you really are. Actually you did admit that yesterday or the day before when you admitted that you checked none of what you posted, but why would that stop you from pretending otherwise just a day or two later?

"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."

There were no excuses -- just facts. I don't care what you like. You are just making excuses for not be able to respond.


"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."

Yes, it does. Let's be honest, do you even know what I was referring to? Do you?

"Thank goodness for the internet.The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians by Pope Saint Clement I of Rome "You were submissive to your officials and paid the older men among you the respect due to them."

"SUBMISSIVE TO YOUR officials."

And that proves my point if you had actually read the letter. Clement was TELLING THE CORINTHIANS to be submissive to their bishops for they were rebelling against them. If the pope had no authority then why would he assume he had the right to correct the Corinthians so that they would stop their rebellion? Duh!


"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."

Yep, and yet you ignore this: "The very thought of insubordination and schism was an abomination to you." Clement was correcting them for embracing schism. Where did he get the authority to do that?

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

Both actually. After all, the bishop of Corinth must have gone to him or written to him -- all the way in Rome -- to seek aid.

"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."

And there is a condemnation of schism. Where did Clement get the authority to tell them not to do that?

"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."

There is no self-glory in the letter because the papacy claims none. There is plenty of papal power. John Paul II writes no differently today.

"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
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."

Of course it says "us" and "we" and papal documents often still do! He wrote: "The words Jesus addressed to the Apostles at the end of the Last Supper are also a moving invitation to us, his disciples in the third millennium." And in the same sermon wrote: " Indeed, without him we can do nothing, for our life is Christ, alive and present in the Church and in the world. Today and forever. Praised be Jesus Christ!" Sounds similar to Clement.

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

You're the liberal here for you are the Protestant. If you can't deal effectively with what I posted I understand. You never can.

"WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ENCYCLOPEDIA? If you can find the information there why not? You are such a SNOB."

No, I am a scholar. I know that an encyclopedia article is deliberately short. Thus, it is silly to say that a person's greatest achievement is X and say the source is a very short encyclopedia entry written by secularists.

"People who write encyclopedias have to do extensive research."

Not always. I have seen it done by freinds and was often surprised at how little research was done to write a sufficient article.

"I am sure there had to be a beginning to the power trip the RCC went on."

Then document it if you are so sure.

"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."

But there was clearly already a Roman Church and not just seven churches. Thus, you are making a logical error in assuming that no mention of a Bishop of Rome means he did not exist. Maybe that simply wasn't the point Jesus was making. To follow your logic then there were only seven churches, seven bishops, TOTAL. Clearly that is untrue.

"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."

No, Catholics quote Tertullian from when he was a Catholic and not a Montanist heretic.

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

No, actually it is the same material, sometimes using the same authors and texts. Many of the most strident anti-catholics in the EO Churches by the way are former Protestants (especially in ROCOR, and in the Antiochian Church).

"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)"

And here is the same false assumption. How does this author know that it is so? Isn't that an argument from silence to say the least?

I wrote:

"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!"

Maybe it is convenient, but it also is true. The author of the original article should have known this and said it, but didn't.

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

How do you know? Can you honestly tell me that you have read every document ever written?

"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."

No, you are the one with the burden of evidence. Notice, I said that the author had no way of knowing if Callistus was the first pope to discuss Matthew 16. That is still true and I am still right. Callistus may have been the first. Or he may not have been. But to say that he was the first is to make an assumption with evidence.

"Saying Peter has spoken through Leo is claiming this Papal power."

What?

I wrote:

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.


You wrote:

"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."

Actually in the above quote Augustine says that Peter is the Rock. Please learn to read clauses. And the point was that the article you posted said otherwise. I therefore demostrated that 1) the author was ignorant, or 2) he was lying. Which is it? Either way I proved him wrong and you too.

"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."

No, the quote is clear -- Peter is the Rock.

"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."

He was Catholic. So am I. He was obedient to the Roman Church. So am I. He believed in the sacraments. So do I. He believed a celibate clergy was good. So do I. He believed in the full canon of the Bible. So do I. He was Catholic. So am I.


"These forgeries exsist. Why did they even need forgeries but to cement their own power."

Prove that they made the forgeries. Many scholars believe the Donation of Constantine was forged by the Franks and not the papacy.

"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?"

First, prove that the papacy forged the documents in question. Second, it is well known that the Church, in fact, already held the authority and even temporal authority claimed in the DOC before it was forged.

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

No, Sylvester was the one in charge through his delegates. Constantine was already PM ever since he took power in the empire and he never gave up that title even when he was baptized on his death bed. By that time, for the emperors, the title had no public religious significance for they didn't participate in the "official" pagan religion any longer after Constantine (except for Julian's apostasy). Under imperial Roman law, the Emperor was always a) "Imperator" ("Commander of the Army" , b) "Princeps" ("First Citizen of the Empire"), c) "Consul" ("Leader of the Roman Senate"), and d) "Pontifex Maximus" ("Head of the Roman State Religion").

Thus, Constantine did not give himself the PM title. It came with the job of emperor.

"There is no evidence of Peter or Paul ever having been at Rome except to be martyred."

Untrue. All early Christians seem to have believed that Peter was in Rome. Why would they all believe that? Why did the Early Church Fathers believe that? Read the following. Please note what the Protestants wrote at the end...

Peter's Presence in Rome

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178) ,in NPNF2,I:130

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History,VI:14,6(A.D. 190), in NPNF2,I:261

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another(an allusion to John 21:18) , when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:648

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' "
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History,2:25(A.D. 198) ,in NPNF2,I:129-130

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in NPNF2,X:132

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria,The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9(A.D. 306),in ANF,VI:273

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius,The Divine Institutes,4:21(A.D. 310),in ANF,VII:123

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,II:14,5 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,X:115

"This man[Simon Magus],after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to Rome...Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,6:14-15(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:37-38

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius,Defence of his Flight,18(c.A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:261

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross."
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15 (A.D. 377),in NPNF2,VI:18

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, ... what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church."
Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32 (c.A.D. 391),in NPNFI,XI:561-562

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?"
Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394),NPNF2,V:535

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city,[ie. Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon[Magus]."
John Cassian,Institutes,X(ante A.D. 435),in NPNF2,XI:218

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries[of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:194




Some non-Catholic historians

"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York:D oubleday,1971) p. 410

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6

"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p. 36


"I know I have posted on that before. Another Catholic myth."

And apparently a Protestant myth if we are to believe the above Protestant scholars.

The Protestant said:

"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."


The Truth is:

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.

Budge responded with:

"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!"

The truth is:

If only you could read Budge! Notice the Protestant who wrote the article suggested the following: 1) Constantine controlled the "churches", and 2) took the title of PM -- apparently AFTER taking control of the "churches". This is misleading in the EXTREME. Constantine claimed the PM title as soon as he was procalimed emperor by his army in England in 306. He didn't extent legal approval to Christians until years later and the Council of Nicea only took place in 325. And, in any case, Constantine never took control of the "churches".

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

Yep, it has nothing to do with Christianity. It wasn't invented by Christians. It wasn't used by Constantine "over" Christians and was never used by Christians until it no longer had ANYTHING to do with paganism. All of that is true.

"Proof that IT DID:"
"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 that just proves my point. JP II is a Christian and not a pagan. I clearly said that the PM title had nothing to do with Christians when it was held by pagans. Yep, I was right. Thanks for helping to prove my point.

"UNBELIEVEABLE.Thats what I mean by YOUR EXCUSES."

No excuses. Just truth. And here is what you refused to mention even though you mention the earlier part of the paragraph and the paragraph that followed: It was only later that the title was passed on, by a Christian emperor (Gratian, in AD 375), to the pope in acknowledgement of the fact that Roman paganism was abandoned in favor of Christianity. Clearly Schroeder has no idea of what he is talking about.

I wrote:

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?

You wrote:

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.

Budge, can you read? The issue here is that Schroeder said Pope Sylvester (pope from 314-335) held a title that he did not, in fact, hold. Now, was Schroeder merely ignorant or was he lying?

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

Incorrect. The authority of the sees was not equal as they themselves made manifest by their deference to the Holy See.

I wrote:

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.

You responded with:

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

Incorrect. "This letter of Siricius is of special importance because it is the oldest completely preserved papal decretal (edict for the authoritative decision of questions of discipline and canon law). It is, however, certain that before this earlier popes had also issued such decretals, for Siricius himself in his letter mentions "general decrees" of Liberius that the latter had sent to the provinces; but these earlier ones have not been preserved." Thus, Pope Siricius was not the first to write a decretal. You were wrong as usual.

Then you actually POSTED info that admitted what you just misrepresented:

"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."



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

And he was not the first to make use of the authority popes always had as I already showed. You are wrong as usual.

"Hey I found the site you copied and pasted from:
Try and put some links up ok"

Nah, I always post good information without errors or misrepresentation and it is always easily found on the net.

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

No, I'll just post as I like. I usually put things in quotes when appropriate. I did here as well: "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...." The beginning is the name of the article as well. Be more observant.

"It is obvious even if one knows French history that there were AntiPopes and more throughout history."

What? Are you referring to Avignon? By the way, Avignon was NOT in France in the Middle Ages. It was an independent territory. And anti-popes do not effect the unbroken succession of the popes. There are no fewer than a dozen men even today claiming to be pope! Only one man is -- John Paul II.

"There is NOT an unbroken line of succession."

Sure there is.

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

Separations of bishops from the Church does not impact the unity of the Roman Church's chief diocese. You really didn't know that did you?

You pasted:

"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"

And that has nothing to do with an unbroken succesion of the popes, the bishops of Rome.

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

Incorrect. Pope Leo was the leader of the orthodox, not the schismatics who broke away.

"Was Pope Leo the ONLY POPE?"

Yes, Pope Leo was the only Pope of Rome.

"NO FALSE."

No, not false. By definition there can only be ONE pope of Rome just as there can only be one president of the US at a time.

"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"

Yeah, there is still a pope in Egypt. But he is not the pope of Rome, the bishop of Rome is THE pope, the leader of the Catholic Church.

"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."

Yes, the Roman pope was the only Roman pope. The fact that there is a President of a school board does not mean that the President of the US is not the ONLY President of the US. He is the only President of the US. The pope of Rome is the only Pope of Rome. I am an admirer of the current Pope Shenouda III or the Coptic Church and his existence in no way impinges on the pope's authority.

And these two popes get along very well by the way: "Later that afternoon, the pope joined in ecumenical prayers with Pope Shenouda, Patriarch Stephanous Ghattas and Safwat Al Bayadi, head of the Evangelical church council, at Our Lady of Egypt Church. The topic of prayer: the unification of all Christian faiths. In an emotional speech, Pope Shenouda turned to Pope John Paul and said: "I love you." "

Thus, once again, you are wrong.

"He probably considered universal bishop not high enough a title. "

And Schroeder was still wrong and so were you to post it without checking first.

"Yet another one of your excuses."

No, a fact. If it isn't a fact then please go ahead and disprove it.

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

For the legal books. Documentation was something that medieval men were very big on.

"Kind of scary you may excuses for a church that has claimed its power through forgeries."

And that isn't what happened nor is it what I said. Pay attention. The Church doesn't base, and didn't base, it's claim to authority (note, not "power") on a forgery. The forgery was considered documentation in support of what already existed in reality.

"They wrote them for a reason, not just for the heck of it!"

Who wrote them? Many scholars believe the Franks, not the papacy, wrote the DOC. You keep avoiding that point. Also, you make the mistake of assuming you KNOW why the forgery was written. Can you honestly say that? No, you can't.

"From Fordham university website: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."

Yeah, notice that that proves me right. The papacy based none of its claims to authority on the DOC. It may very well have based its claims to territorial power over central Italy on the DOC, but you are collapsing the two into one as if they were the same and they weren't. And still, Paul Halsall , whose editorial comment you quoted, noted exactly my point: "it provied the basis for papal territorial and jurisdictional claims in Italy." It was not the basis for papal authority. It may have been the basis for temporal power in central Italy, but that is not the issue here.

"Claiming land and power over kings.so many lies and more that"

And you should hear what the Roman called the Greeks!

"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??!"

It happened EXACTLY for the same reason it ended more than once -- the Byzantine emperors wanted it. They controlled the eastern churches. They dictated policy. That is still the case today in Russia. And even today the Turkish government gets a major say in who becomes the Ecumenical Patriarch.

"Give me a break...Ever heard of interdicts? They would not only punish the king but the entire country"

Yes, over religious matters!

"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."

Yeah, you quoted that and still missed these words some how: "public worship and withdrew the sacraments" and "pressured their rulers to repent". That sounds rather religious doesn't it? You've proven my point for me.

"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."

So war is merely a political matter? Are you serious? Is slavery a merely economic affair? Is abortion a merely medical affair? Duh!

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

No, Philip attacked the Church with illegal taxes and then literally attacked the pope when the pope got tough on him! Philip was wrong.

"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."

Budge, you have no idea what the Investiture Struggle is do you? The I.S. was about who was going to appoint bishops-- the pope or the emperors? Clearly the state had no right to try and seize control of the Church's dioceses. The popes were right to defend the Church. Do you want the state telling your church who it can appoint as a pastor?

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

No, almost everything has a "spiritual" dimension because all things are to be restored in Christ.

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

Constantine did not "go to the council". He called the bishops to where he was going to be. Even that doesn't prove that he controlled the Church for then it would be Arian. Constantine, who was orthodox at Nicea, later turned Arian, and tried to force the Catholic Church to become Arian. She refused. Constantine's sons and successors were Arians.

"Meanwhile, Constantia, the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated."

"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!"

And it could be that all sorts of things were claimed with the DOC, but it was not the foundation of the papacy as a religious institution.

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

Only in your knowledge Budge.