Posted on 10/15/2008 11:17:09 AM PDT by Gamecock
That’s good news.
I believe it did. At the Council of Trent. :)
And if you think that loose ecclesiastical model you have drawn up was the norm for the 300 years before Constantine, you might want to review the Christian literature of the time period. From Ignatius of Antioch to Irenaeus of Lyons, the divine authority of the bishop comes across quite clear.
cue laughing dog gif
Better than some other options.
Though I’m still asking for a ticket on the first elevator UP.
‘Tis all in HIS hands.
Notice that the sentence above contains a quote.
That quote is not from you, the poster known as "count-your-change", the quote is from the original article.
Perhaps I should have said: "If one is going to claim 'Gregory VII said', then one needs to have hard evidence, or one is lying" in order to be crystal clear.
I apologize for offending you with my clumsy locution.
I’ll say the Rosary for you too.
How can they possibly defend this article on substance?
This article attacks certain popes (and a few non-popes) on matters of character, not theology. However, huge portions of this article are demonstrably FALSE (i.e. that John XXIII was a pimp, murderer, adulterer and pirate was "defended" by saying that it referred to an anti-pope; however, the article never states this, so the average uninformed anti-Catholic bigot will conclude that it refers to a mid-20th Century pope AND the writers, probably deliberately, OMITTED dates for this non-pope presumably to push this lie).
As do I for being too easily offended. mea culpa. done and done.
Since I stll have lots of white space on the screen, what do you make of this comment from Crowdrey’s book?
“Since the dictatus papae has a place in what is almost certainly the original register of the papal chancery, its authnticity as a document emanating from, and almost certainly drafted by, Gregory himself cannot be seriously questioned”.
This is from the introduction to Cowdrey’s book, Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085, page 502.
This very much, in a common sense way, flies in the face the claim that Rome's primates are the sole "vicars of Christ" or that "ex Cathedra" (however you might define that...) they speak for God.
It also, again in a common sense way, throws a monkey wrench in the idea of "uninterrupted" apostolic succession if the "see of St. Peter"....even if only 5% of Boetner's alleged histories are true.
VERY WELL PUT.
Though I’ve long thought that basic summary was
obvious
to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
I don't have a grudge from events of 700+ years ago (the popes listed here) the problem I have is that much of MODERN Roman Catholic theology is based on a supposed history of uninterrupted aposotlic (godly) authority...which at the top, anyhow, in Medieval times, is demonstrably false. Surely there were many godly popes...but also more than a few stinkers.
I believe in miracles though--and I trust in God's providence, whoever is elected. Perhaps a liberal now, with the horrible long-term repercussions politically, would be enough to shock America to wake up and repent.
the problem I have is that much of MODERN Roman Catholic theology is based on a supposed history of uninterrupted aposotlic (godly) authority...which at the top, anyhow, in Medieval times, is demonstrably false.
= = =
Which, basically, is a huge stinking tip of a very stinky false iceberg.
This is exactly why history needs to be examined rationally.
Pretty much every contemporary who bothered to write nasty things about a medieval Pope was related to or working for that Pope's political enemies.
And, as is expected, these authors - who saw the Popes they were criticizing as personal threats to their fortunes and ambitions - did not hesitate to spread the most outrageous rumors they could.
What is incontrovertibly true is that every powerful man in Europe did his best to get his favored candidate on the papal throne, and a large number of Popes were - as a result of this struggle - politicians first and pastors second. Sometimes a very distant second.
However, these political popes probably lived lives like those of other petty medieval noblemen - which were not quite the same as the lives of the Roman Emperors. Most of the outrageous accusations leveled against these Popes by their enemies are cribbed from Suetonius' Lives Of The Caesars and are probably not actual descriptions of contemporary events.
This very much, in a common sense way, flies in the face the claim that Rome's primates are the sole "vicars of Christ" or that "ex Cathedra" (however you might define that...) they speak for God.
No Pope claims to "speak for God" - they claim to teach authoritatively what the Church, informed by Christ, believes.
And yes, the Popes are the only men who hold the stewardship given to Peter in its entirety.
It also, again in a common sense way, throws a monkey wrench in the idea of "uninterrupted" apostolic succession if the "see of St. Peter"....even if only 5% of Boetner's alleged histories are true.
Not at all.
An office does not cease to exist because its holder is a bad guy. George W. Bush is still a legitimate holder of the office of the presidency regardless of the way his predecessor disgraced the office.
Bill Clinton couldn't erase the legitimacy and continuity of the presidency. No more could an utterly useless prelate like Benedict IX erase the legitimacy and continuity of the papacy.
We are a Church of God's laws, not of men.
I don't have a grudge from events of 700+ years ago (the popes listed here) the problem I have is that much of MODERN Roman Catholic theology is based on a supposed history of uninterrupted apostolic (godly) authority...which at the top, anyhow, in Medieval times, is demonstrably false. Surely there were many godly popes...but also more than a few stinkers.
YHvH will always maintain and protect His remnant without the help of the Roman church. Clinging to apostolic succession as authority impugns YHvH as not being All-powerful.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
Granted I read the book more than 5 years ago, but I'm pretty sure that the introduction of the 750 page book did not run on to page 502.
Regardless, this is removed from its context, where Cowdrey goes on to express his puzzlement that Gregory VII and his contemporaries never used this text or commented on it publicly - that no traces of it are perceptible in Gregory's concurrent letters or later writings, that it was not mentioned at the Lenten Synod, that his sworn enemies never used it against him. That no one even mentioned it until after he died, etc.
The text itself is written in two different hands, neither of which is identifiable as Gregory's.
So what is Cowdrey's conclusion? That Gregorian authorship only makes sense if he had it drawn up as a list of topics for further research in the Vatican records.
Then again, it was His Church which protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against those, like you, who deny the Trinity.
XS>YHvH will always maintain and protect His remnant without the help of the Roman church.
Then again, it was His Church which protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against those, like you, who deny the Trinity.
176 posted on October 16, 2008 10:31:08 AM MDT by wagglebee
Peter reports that Yah'shua says there is only ONE YHvH ! The LORD an Abundant Helper. Praise the LORD! Yah'shua did not incorporate a man made organization.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
Psalm 146
1 Praise the LORD, O my soul!
2 I will praise the LORD while I live;
I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.
3 Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.
5 How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
Whose hope is in YHvH his God,
I agree the office of presidency doesn’t cease to exist, even if we have a whole slew of evil, unconstitutional dictators (maybe starting with yOu knOw whO) but that is because the authority of our government, based on the will of the people, is rooted in a written document, the Constitution.
And that documentary, or covenantal root was a very familiar form to the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers—as Protestant Christianity is rooted in a single document (named the Old and New Covenants), namely the Bible.
On the other hand, Dual Authority—namely in a document AND a “living” authoritative interpreter of it, as defined by Trent...is much more like the vision of liberal Democrats and their current far left head (or could I call him a secular pOpe?), very possibly our next president.
I believe that the “dual authority” (i.e. the Constitution AND what Courts (and Congress/Presidency) tell you it is...) idea is the reason why an overwelming majority of Roman Catholics will vote Democrat again this year, as they have in virtually every election in the past. They are used to broad authority (to the Church, the papacy, Tradition, etc.) in their religion...hence it makes them comfortable with it in their government.
It is well known Roman Catholic politicians, like Biden, Kennedy and Pelosi, who have led the way in propagating and funding abortion and vast expansions of government authority. Of course moderate Republican protestants (like our current president) have done more than their share of spreading the evils of socialism too...
The Founding Fathers authored a document and they created a continuous interpretative authority - the Supreme Court.
If you would like to argue that the Founding fathers were "liberal Democrats" for creating the Supreme Court, I'm happy to debate the point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.