The Papacy - Where Peter is, There is the Church

Catholic Legate ^ | September 23, 2004 | Father M. Piotrowski

[NYer]

"Where Peter is, there is the church … he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope."

These words, reflecting on the meaning of the visions in Fatima, were uttered by Sister Lucia, the only surviving witness to the apparitions there. Our Lady of Fatima summons us to convert to a living and authentic faith in the only God of the Trinity, who is truly present in the Eucharist. The Mother of God reminds us that the Pope plays a decisive role in the transmission of the fullness of the faith. The Pope, as the successor to Saint Peter, is the rock on which Christ builds his church (Mt. 16:18). It is to Saint Peter that our Lord Jesus granted full authority to infallibly teach the truths of the faith and to lead and govern the entire church. Saint Peter was the first to establish the bishop’s capital in Rome, and to consecrate it with his own blood, the blood of a martyr. For this reason each successor to Saint Peter in the Capital acquires primacy over the whole Church.

Saint Peter resided in Rome and suffered a martyr’s death there in the year 67 A.D., at the time of the Christian persecutions during the reign of the emperor Nero. The exact place of his martyrdom is unknown. Historians believe Saint Peter was crucified upside down in Nero’s amphitheater, which was situated where the Vatican now stands. He was buried at a nearby cemetery. Many years of excavations underneath the Basilica of Saint Peter led to the discovery of the first Pope’s tomb. The tomb lies directly beneath the Pope’s altar in the Vatican Basilica. This tomb signifies that each bishop of Rome is Saint Peter’s successor and by virtue of his office as "the successor of Christ and the Pastor of the whole Church has full, supreme and universal power over the church" (Christus Dominus 2:9).

For thirteen centuries no one questioned the presence of Saint Peter’s tomb in the Vatican. The first to dispute this were the adherents of the Waldensian heresy, who rejected the primacy of the Pope, maintaining that Saint Peter was never in Rome, let alone that his tomb was there. Likewise, Luther and other leaders of the Reformation denied the existence of Saint Peter’s tomb in the Vatican, at the same time calling into question the primacy and infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith.

Excavation work beneath St Peter’s Basilica began in the spring of 1939 following the death of Pius XI, who had expressed the wish to be buried in the Vatican Grottos. During the digging of his grave, the remains of a pagan necropolis from Roman times were discovered. Hearing of this discovery, Pope Pius XII commissioned a team of research workers to begin excavations and investigations, which after several years lead to sensational discoveries. During the 10 years of archaeological work part of a large cemetery was discovered. Its greatest period of development would have taken place between the 2^nd and the beginning of the 4^th centuries A.D. Sepulchres were discovered along a street, which ran in the vicinity of Nero’s amphitheater. That superbly preserved necropolis is a typical pagan cemetery, and in it are also found Christian graves. To this day one can admire tombs and monuments of unparalleled architectural beauty, which belonged to affluent Roman families.

In the Valerius’ vault a Latin inscription was found: Petrus rogat Iesus Christus pro sanctis hominibus chrestianis ad corpus suum sepultis (Peter prays to Jesus Christ for the Christians buried near his body). In Popilius Herakles’ tomb the following inscription was found; IN VATIC. AD CIRCUM (at the Vatican, near the amphitheater), which confirms the cemetery’s location on the Vatican hills in the vicinity of Nero’s amphitheater. In the main, however, these were sepulchres of families professing a pagan religion.

At the beginning of the 4^th century the cemetery was in full use. According to Roman law the tombs were sacred and inviolable. The only reason the emperor Constantine (280 – 337) was required to break the Roman cemetery law in the case of this necropolis was the necessity of building a Christian basilica on the terrain owing to the great devotion Christians had to the tomb of St. Peter, which was located there. The emperor ordered a so-called congestion terrarum, demolishing the northern end of the cemetery and covering tombs which were found in its southern part with earth. The aim was to obtain a wide flat area on the slope of the Vatican hill at the same level as the tomb of Saint Peter, and to begin the construction of the basilica there in reverence to the first Pope. It bears witness to the tremendous veneration in which the first Christians held the tomb of Saint Peter.

Cross section of necropolis below the Bernini altar

The excavations carried out in the central area of the basilica, under the pope’s altar, lead to the sensational discovery of the tomb and relics of St. Peter. First to be discovered was a huge cuboidal marble reliquary almost 3 yards wide. It had been built by the emperor Constantine in the years 321 – 324. A small tombstone, in the shape of a hollowed-out chapel, was found inside the reliquary and was supported by two columns and set in a red-plastered wall. Since this tiny memorial had been enclosed in the reliquary it must have been of extraordinary significance. The research workers had come upon the most important section of the Vatican Basilica and the entire underground necropolis. It became evident that this was the first monument to be erected, in the 2^nd century, on St Peter’s tomb. The first Christians considered the tomb of St. Peter a victorious trophy. Since the earliest information concerning the ‘trophy-tomb’ of St. Peter comes from the Roman priest Gaius, this tombstone was called Gaius’ Trophy. Early in the 2^nd century the Roman Christian community built the ‘trophy-tomb’ on the unexpectedly modest grave of St Peter, which had quite simply been dug in the ground. On its western side a red plastered wall enclosed it. This wall surrounded a small burial ground about 8 x 4 yards. Many common and simple graves were found there, placed around St. Peter’s grave, on top of which sat Gaius’ Trophy. The tomb of the Apostle Peter was particularly highly venerated, to which the many inscriptions on the so called ‘g – wall’ bear witness, including a large inscription in Greek: "Peter is here at the ‘red wall’."

Red Wall

The research undertaken over many years by Professor Margherita Guarducci led to the discovery of the meanings of the many inscriptions on the ‘g – wall’. They were written by the one person responsible for that place, according to established principles of mystical cryptography, and were both spiritually as well as logically ordered. As an example, we know that the letters u - á mean a transition from the end, that is from death to the beginning, to the fullness of life.

Aside from the names of the dead the name of St. Peter appears, linked with the names of Christ and Mary, as well as the profession of belief in the Blessed Trinity; that Jesus Christ is true God and true man; that he is the second person in the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God, the Beginning and the End, the Life, the Light, the Resurrection, Salvation, Peace and Victory etc. In this manner Christians professed their faith in the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s Divinity, the intercession of Mary and eternal life and prayed for their dead.

This is extremely important testimony indicative of the fact that since the very beginnings of Christianity there was a very deep faith in the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the intercession of the Mother of God and eternal life, as well as the primacy of St. Peter.

It is also worthwhile to mention at this point the inscription hoc vince (with this you shall conquer) near Christ’s monogram. It is the Latin translation of a famous Greek inscription ôdoôu íéeáM, which the emperor Constantine saw in the sky, together with a cross, before his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge against Maxentius’s armies on October 28 in the year 312.

Archaeologists were very surprised when they failed to find the relics of St. Peter in the grave dug in the ground. They were later found just over 2 yards above the original grave in a recess in the ‘g-wall’. The recess containing the relics was discovered on October 13, 1941. It transpired that the emperor Constantine had transferred the relics of St. Peter from the original grave to the specially prepared recess in the ‘g - wall’ during the construction of the marble reliquary.

The relics became the subject of anthropological studies of many years duration. Initially the studies were headed by Professor Galeazzi Lisi, then by Professor Correnti. The results of the studies were printed in 1965 in a book published by the Vatican: Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la Confessione della Basilica Vaticana.. The bones of St. Peter, placed at the time of the emperor Constantine in the ‘g-wall’ recess, were wrapped in a valuable purple cloth interwoven with pure gold.

The anthropological studies revealed that the bones belonged to one person, a male of stocky build, aged between 60 – 70 years and 5 feet 5 inches tall.

The scientific confirmation of the authenticity of the relics of St. Peter was an extremely important event. During the general audience on June 26, 1968 Pope Paul VI officially announced the discovery of the relics of St Peter. The following day, during the course of formal celebrations, 19 receptacles holding the relics of the first Pope were laid to rest in the recess of the ‘g-wall,’ where they remain to this day.

Father M. Piotrowski, Society of Christ
September 23, 2004

[NYer]

NYer, I hope you weren't directing this at me.

No, dear friend, the intended recipient of the 'barbed' attack has now been banished from the forum. It was not directed at you. You are doing an excellent job with your probing questions. You remain in my prayers.

[Rokke]

"One can translate all they want from the original texts, but if one interprets it incorrectly, how can one be correct?"

If you intrepret something incorrectly, you can't, by definition be correct. But I would be interested to know what differences in interpretation you've found in the New Testament. And while the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible includes some of the additional books added to the Septaugent translation of the Hebrew Bible, I don't believe there are differences in translation with the books the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible share.

[Rokke]

"I'm not a Roman Catholic and I most certainly was not talking about the Roman Catechism."

Well that explains it then. What catechism do you use?

[Phsstpok]

Where Peter is, there is the church

If this is supposed to mean that the Pope is paramount because his authority descends from Peter, there's a little problem. The problem is that the link was broken in the 13th century by Philip Le Bel and Guillaume de Nogart who kidnapped and killed one Pope, assassinated another and then stole the Papacy and moved it, lock stock and Earthly power, to France. Thus began the Avignon captivity. (don't bother to damn the French - they already are)

I believe that there have been truly holy men who have occupied the Papacy since it was returned to Rome. There have also been great sinners. Regardless, I believe the link to Peter has been irrevocably broken.

That was the point that the Cathars had in mind.

They are conveniently on the move again. This time moving through "history" and popular literature (soon to be a major motion picture, starring Tom Hanks).

There are still links to the Apostolic era. The Cele Dei still resides in a few places, but mostly in hiding. Some Orthodox churches in far flung places still continue lines unbroken from the Apostles. The Santhome Cathedral, where the Apostle Thomas was buried, was reportedly spared the recent Tsunami. Is there an unbroken link there? And are the Poor Knights of the Temple truly gone?

We must not confuse the actions of good men with the actions of God. We must not ascribe God's plan to a place or a tradition if the place and tradition have been corrupted by acts of evil men serving a different master.

INCOMING!!!!!!!!

[Kolokotronis]

I'm Orthodox. There really isn't anything like an official catechism in Orthodoxy. My point to you about the Creed is that the bishops who proclaimed the Creed at the Council of Nicea used the words quoted in a very specific way and the words are interdependent. The allusion to the year 98 refers to the first use of the word "catholic" (universal) to describe the Church, by St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch, appointed by St. Peter and a disciple of both +Peter and +John, who defined the Church as catholic and to be found where the bishop is because that is where Christ is. Apostolicity refers to the bishops within the succession from the Apostles and which every Roman, Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholic and Non Chalcedonian Christian bishop can lay claim to. When the Nicene Fathers used these words, this is what they meant and actually what that quoted part of the Creed means.

[DBeers]

"he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope."

As I stated before the apparent contradiction in the statement is of your own construct. As per Apostolic succession, the Pope is the head of the Church Christ founded. Salvation is through Christ -not conceptually BUT in reality by obediently following ALL His teachings which are both divinely inspired written and contained in Apostolic Tradition handed down Apostle to Apostle within the deposit of Faith -the Church He founded.

I do not say it is impossible to gain eternal life through Christ if outside of His Church and not aware of the full Truth maintained by and within His Church and His Apostles; however, to be in His Church is to be with His Apostle is to be with Him figuratively speaking -as such, more assured of understanding and gaining understanding of His teachings -subsequently, better predisposed and prepared to be obedient and possibly gain eternal life through Christ...

If you can understand Christian's relationships to other Apostles as compared to Christ you will understand why it is absurd to think Catholic's consider salvation through our Pope -this continued mischaracterization is errant thinking at best and Catholic bashing ar worst.

Wiser men than me have done the same thing and come up with similar conclusions.

From my perspective -it is not wiser men you speak of -it is lost men or dissenting men...

[DBeers]

Regardless, I believe the link to Peter has been irrevocably broken.

Following your logic the Papacy is always broken with each death beginning with Peter's -as you assume the 'hand off' is by man and of man rather than divinely inspired -this temporal logic discounts the supernatural by imposing temporal limits on Christ and His Church.

[Rokke]

This is going to sound like nitpicking, but the facts are important. The last two paragraphs of the Nicene Creed (including "One holy, catholic and apostolic church) weren't added until the Council of Constantinople in 381. The concept of a single, unified apostolic church didn't really exist in the early part of the fourth century (during the Council of Nicea), as each of the churches founded by an Apostle was known as an "Apostolic Church". Being an "Apostolic Church" provided that church a measure of additional importance. It is important to note that almost all of the Apostolic churches were in the West. But, by the time of the Council of Constantinople (which was in the East), some of the original Apostolic churches had begun to reject the orthodox faith. The importance attached to being an Apostolic Church was in decline, (although the Church in Rome still tried to claim the title of being "First" among Apostolic churches). But with no Bishops from the West attending the Council of Constantinople, and no churches in the East holding the title of Apostolic church, the Eastern Bishops no doubt recognized a good opportunity to give the term "Apostolic" a more universal meaning. Thus, from many separate Apostolic churches came one, universal, apostolic church.

Finally, the statement you reference from St. Ignatius is not accurate as you describe it. His quote is, "Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." In other words, the church is where Christ is, which is a little different than saying Christ is where the Bishop is.

[Rokke]

"As per Apostolic succession, the Pope is the head of the Church Christ founded."

Jesus Christ is the head of His Church. The Bible cannot be any clearer on that subject, and the Catholic church is in full agreement. But even if the Pope were the head of the church, it remains irrelevent with respect to being with God. Again, I quote Jesus Christ himself. He says "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Only through Christ. Not the Pope. And while the church is Christ's body, we are brought into His body through the Sacrament of Baptism. Again, the Pope is not required.

"...it is absurd to think Catholic's consider salvation through our Pope -this continued mischaracterization is errant thinking at best and Catholic bashing ar worst."

And if you can show me were I said that even once, nevermind continually, I will apologize. But I have never said Catholics believe they will achieve salvation through the Pope. I know that isn't true. I have simply disagreed with the quote that opened this article, and I do not believe it accurately reflects the doctrine of the Catholic church. It would appear, on that point, you and I are in agreement.

[Kolokotronis]

With all due respect, the Nicene Creed was amplified at the Council of Constantinople (381) into its present form, or at least that is what the Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 say. I can't imagine where you got the idea that there were fewer bishops in the East in 381 than in the barbarian West. Four of the five Patriarchates were there and since the East was fully civilized then, and the West wasn't it seems likely there were far more bishops in the East than in the West, but a few minutes of research can probably tell us the answer to that one. If you know of any Churches in the East which by 381 did not claim to be headed by a bishop in the Apostolic succession, please let me know. There were bishops who, with hindsight appear to have been teaching various Heresies, monophysitism springs to mind and of course, arianism and appolonarianism, but they all claimed apostolic succession. Perhaps you are confusing the declaration of the bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) as second in honor to the Patriarch of Rome. That Patriarchate was not one of the original four and Rome for some time didn't like that declaration.

As for +Ignatius, what he wrote in his letter to the Church at Smyrna (interestingly, it is addressed to "to all the congregations of the Holy Catholic Church in every place") in relevant part was:

VIII. Avoid divisions,as the beginning of evil. Follow, all of you, the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father; and follow the presbytery as the Apostles. Moreover reverence the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no man do aught pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that eucharist be considered valid which is under the bishop or him to whom he commits it. Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast. But whatsoever he approves, that also is well-pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid.

IX. It is reasonable that henceforth we should awake and live soberly, while we have opportunity to repent and turn to God. It is good to acknowledge God and the bishop. He that honours the bishop is honoured of God. He that does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves the Devil. Let all things then abound unto you in grace, for you are worthy. In every way you have refreshed me, and Jesus Christ shall refresh you. Alike in my absence and presence you have cherished me. May God reward you, and as you endure for His sake, so shall you attain unto Him.

Here St. Ignatius is making a comparison of the local Church around a bishop (who is absolutely necessary for a Church to be worthy of its name, see his letter to the Trallians 3) to the universal or "catholic" (the word he uses is katholicos) Church. Orthodox theologians have always asserted that the fullness of the Church is found in a single diocese, the bishop surrounded by his people. Fr. John Romanides, who has some great partisans on FR, wrote:

"Since for Ignatius the Eucharist is the formative and manifest center of corporate love unto immortality, and at the same time the weapon which insures the continues defeat of the devil, it is quite clear that the corporate liturgy is the very pivotal point of faith in action, the participation of which is the only sure sign of continuous communion with God and neighbor unto salvation. This unity of selfless love in Christ with each other and the saints is an end in itself - not a means to another end. The existence of any other utilitarian and eudaimonistic motive other than unconditional selfless love for God and neighbor in Christ simply means slavery to the powers of Satan. "... love nothing except God." (Ign. Eph. 9, 11; Mag. 1.)

"In the Eucharistic life of selfless love is thus understood as an end in itself and the only condition for continual membership in the Church, it follows that the relationship of one community to another cannot be one of inferiority or superiority. Nor can one community be considered a part to another community because the fullness of Christ is to be found in the Eucharist which itself is the highest and only possible center and consummation of the life of unity and love. " ...whether Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ign. Smyr. 8.) [ 13 ] Besides, the devil is not destroyed by an abstract idea of unity and love. He can be defeated only locally by the unity of faith and love of real people living together their life in Christ. An abstract federation of communities whereby each body is a member of a more general body reduces the Eucharist to a secondary position and makes possible the heretical idea that there is a membership in the body of Christ higher and more profound than the corporate life of local love for real people and thus the whole meaning of the incarnation of God and the destruction of the Satan in a certain place and at a certain time in history is destroyed. Each individual becomes a member of the body of Christ spiritually and physically at a special time and in a certain place in the presence of those to whom he is about to be joined. [ 14 ] Those who share in one bread are one body. (I Cor. 10:17.) This sharing in one bread cannot happen in general, but only locally. There, are, however, many liturgical centers each breaking one bread, but together totaling many breads. Nevertheless there are not many bodies of Christ, but one. Therefore each community having the fullness of Eucharistic life is related to other communities not by a common participation in something greater than the local life in the Eucharist, but by an identity of existence in Christ. "...wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." (Ign. Smyr. 8.) [ 15 ]"

Romanides also writes: "According to the thought of Ignatius there exists an inseparable relationship between the bishop and the Eucharist. Unity with the bishop and unity with each other in the one bread within the altar is precisely one identical reality. There is one flesh of the Lord, one cup, one altar, as there is one bishop. "Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto unity of His blood, one altar, as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery, and deacons, my fellow-servants, so that whatever you do, you may do it according to God." (Ign. Phil. 4; also to be interpreted in the light of this passage: Eph. 20; Mag. 7; Tral. 7; Phil. sal.) The liturgy is a distinctive characteristic of the office of the bishop under whose personal surveillance all mysteries must be performed. "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a firm Eucharist which is under the bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it." (Smyr. 8.) Only in case of necessity could the Eucharist be administered under the surveillance of a presbyter. This is clearly indicated by the fact that, "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an agape." (Ibid.) Such a claim that even the agape cannot be held without the bishop would be incomprehensible and extremely fantastic if it were not presupposed that in the thought and experience of St. Ignatius each liturgical center necessitated the existence of a bishop-that the relationship of one bishop to each liturgical center was an inseparable reality.

For a further clarification of the essential relationship of the office of one bishop to one Eucharistic center, St. Ignatius offers up the fact that the local unity of Christians in Christ epi to auto is clearly and visibly imaged by unity in the person, or office, of the bishop. Unity in the bishop is a living image of unity in Christ. "It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself." (Ign. Eph. 6.) "... take heed to do all things in the harmony of God with the bishop presiding in the place of God." (Mag. 6) " For when you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ you appear to me to live not after the manner of men but according to Jesus Christ... " (Tral. 2.) "... let all reverence ... the bishop as Jesus Christ." (Ibid. 3.) "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Smyr. 8.) It is obvious beyond any doubt that St. Ignatius is here borrowing the concept of the bishop as the image of Christ from the liturgical practise of the Church. He never refers to the presbyters as icons of Christ or in the place of God as he no doubt would have had they been in communities without bishops the regular and proper administrators of the mysteries and the center of local life in Christ epi to auto. On the contrary he always refers to them corporately in the plural as "presbyters" or "presbytery" in the place of the apostles (Mag. 6; Tral. 2, 3: Phil. 5; Smyr. 8.) and as a "council of God." (Tral. 3.) It would have been complete nonsense for Ignatius to compare the presence of the Catholic Church in Christ with the presence of the multitude in the bishop (Smyr. 8) if each local community did not possess a bishop. Is it possible that Ignatius believed that Christ is not present in all His glory in the Eucharist administered under a presbyter? This is hardly the case since he insists that "wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." (Smyr. 8.)"

Rokke, the point of all this is to demonstrate that even in the earliest days of the Church, bishops were present, functioning and absolutely necessary persons in the Church. They represent Christ. And as Romanides points out, the multitudes with the bishop are as the Catholic Church with Christ. Thus, without bishops in the Apostolic succession, there simply is no Church.

[netmilsmom]

>>I think the very defensive mindset of many Catholic Freepers does serious damage to your cause. <<

That is your opinion. We don't have a cause, it's our lives and frankly I'm very tired of it.
As I have said many times before, I am on the ping lists of Alouette, SJackson and Salem. No one comes onto their threads to "discuss" the problems with being Jewish.
For those who are sincere, the Catholics have no problem with conversation. However, I will point out those who are on the thread just to slap us.
Did you happen to go into the link at post 58? There was no discussion for that link. It was vile and leud, stating that one of our Saints wrote pornography. I Google searched one of the offending lines and found two sites that mirrored each others words. It was made up by an ex-Catholic priest as stated in the first lines of the essay.

Now the Catholics are wrong? Ask Michael King if someone put a deflaming (Maybe KKK) link on one of his threads, would someone get upset? I'm on his ping lists as well, no one does, but it's okay for the Catholic threads? And we are suppose to ignore it for the sake of conversation? We are tired of discussing with people who just want to slam.

Come in here with civility and we will discuss. But I think the Catholics have had enough of the "Pig Pile" everytime Mary or the Pope is mentioned in the title of the thread.

I will continue to point out anyone who slams. Be nice and it won't be you.

[Kolokotronis]

I like your about page. I've sent the jpeg on to my cousin the Jesuit. He'll get a kick out of it!

By the way, don't feel all alone in the bashing. For the longest time on FR we Orthodox seemed immune to it. Now the Catholic bashers think they have figured us out too. Before they thought we were Eastern protestants (if they thought of us at all), now they think we're Romans under a deep Eastern cover and obscured behind clouds of incense! Oh well, let the heathens rage!

[CouncilofTrent]

:)

[netmilsmom]

The credit for the graphic goes to Sartorius. We went back and forth with different graphics and I loved this one!

>>Oh well, let the heathens rage!<<

LOLOL!!!
And they do!

[deaconjim]

Luke chapter 24
40 But hte other answering rebuked him, sying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I don't see any mention of the Pope in this passage. Could it be that this one man made it past the Pope straight in to heaven?

[deaconjim]

Luke chapter 24
40 But the other answering rebuked him, sying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I don't see any mention of the Pope in this passage. Could it be that this one man made it past the Pope straight in to heaven?

[Kolokotronis]

I thought you'd like that!

[Rokke]

"the Nicene Creed was amplified at the Council of Constantinople (381) into its present form, or at least that is what the Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 say."

That is true. And included in that amplification was adding everything that came after "We believe in the Holy Spirit." That is simply a matter of historic fact.

"I can't imagine where you got the idea that there were fewer bishops in the East in 381 than in the barbarian West."

I never said that. I said there were no "Apostolic" churches in the East in the 4th Century. That also is a matter of historic fact. Again, at that time "Apostolic churches" were considered those specific churches founded by a specific apostle. That too, is a matter of historic fact. The term "Apostolic" didn't take on a more universal meaning until late in the 4th and early 5th Centuries. The following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia, "At the time of the Christological controversies in the fourth and fifth centuries some of these Apostolic Churches rejected the orthodox faith. Thus it happened that the title "Apostolic Churches" was no longer used in apologetic treatises, to denote the particular Churches founded by the Apostles."

I appreciate the information on Ignatius, and I will study that more closely later. But I reject your concluding comment, "Thus, without bishops in the Apostolic succession, there simply is no Church." That is clearly counter to the words of Christ. But again, I will try to comment more later.

[Rokke]

"I will continue to point out anyone who slams. Be nice and it won't be you."

I'm not sure if that is supposed to be impressive or threatening. It's neither. In the context of an internet chat site, it is actually kind of amusing.

[netmilsmom]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here?
That Jesus is not on the same level as the Pope?

Catholics don't think that, why do you?