Posted on 10/25/2009 5:47:50 AM PDT by NYer
"a 'papa' for the city of Rome?"
The first Pope arrived in Rome in the first century. The title we apply to the office came later, but the office was there.
Your logic seems similar to saying there was no Greenland until someone named it Greenland. LOL
Greenland has been there for millenia, under many names.
You just can't control yourself, can you?
There are those who have been asked not to stalk and trash everyone. But they persist in demonstrating their demonic influenceCorrecting your serial misstatements about the Catholic Church is not "stalking." As for "demonic influence," well, I stand with the Church founded by Christ.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thanks!
>>> No, Constantine retained the title of pontificus maximus of Roman PAGANISM. <<<
What do you mean by this? I could just as easily write, "BXVI retains the title of pontifex maximus of Roman PAGANISM," but I wouldn't have said anything substantive or addressed the issues that I've brought up, now would I?
>>> Are you a member of one of these sects that believes that Easter and the Trinity are pagan traditions? <<<
Actually, I'm a Trinitarian, and I've read my Ronald Hutton (and others) and so I know that the folks who equate Easter with paganism are either deluded, sadly mistaken or are grinding an axe with little regard for the truth. And don't get me started on those All Hallows Eve = Samhain nutters. However, this is off topic, don't you think?
Don't worry, wagglebee. I give my arguments freely, without waiting for the prior approval of you or anyone else. Just thought I would re-phrase your point in more historically accurate language.
>>> Which you have yet to accomplish. <<<
I'm not so sure. You are beginning to distinguish between P.M. and "papa." That's a step in the right direction.
Which title? Your vagueness is confusing.
>>>Pope of the Catholic Church. <<<
Right. Once again, please note that I'm arguing that in the context of the 4th century Mediterranean basin, there was no Pope of the Catholic Church, certainly not in the sense we would say today that "BXVI is called the Pope of the Catholic Church." However, there WAS a Pontifex Maximus of the Roman State.
...which is why my original post was requesting an apology for UriÂ’el-2012, who was being incorrectly accused of misrepresenting the facts and "cutting and pasting" in regards to this matter.
Oh, c’mon Petronski. Do you have ANYTHING of substance to contribute here?
I think that you’ll have an easier time understanding my posts on this thread when you realize that I am saying that, before the sixth century, PM and “papa” were not connected in Rome or anywhere else. I’m fully aware that the city of Rome had Chrsitian leaders long before Constantine became the first Christian emperor.
Once again please note that I'm telling you that you are wrong.
Except that WOULD NOT be true, in Constantine's case it was.
Actually, I'm a Trinitarian, and I've read my Ronald Hutton (and others) and so I know that the folks who equate Easter with paganism are either deluded, sadly mistaken or are grinding an axe with little regard for the truth.
Well, then you will be happy to know that certain FReepers consider you part of the "Roman church".
Right. Once again, please note that I'm arguing that in the context of the 4th century Mediterranean basin, there was no Pope of the Catholic Church,
The fact that you are arguing something does not make it true.
ZZZZZZZZZZZ
ONE of the reasons, but only one, is that Constantine, having made Xty legal sought to exercise some authority over it. And the Xtians were not likely to sort of rear back and say, "We liked it better when we were illegal." We're in this for the long haul, and if some guy wants to lord it over us, one option is to hang back until we're in a position to, ahem, clarify things.
But, in related news, We think the St. Peter was Pope before pope was cool, uh, I mean before the word came into use. He was also Pope, we think, before the nature of that role -- which was still being majorly clarified in the 19th century -- was nailed down.
If I may generalize, there's something similar to "projection" going on here. Catholicism is messy, like most organic things. It's not a crisp, clear, legalistic phenomenon with a lot of bright lines and a handbook which is in every instance applicable.
For example, until the Holy See said, "No lay people preaching during Mass and we really mean it, don't make us come up there!" I was allowed to preach at a few Masses, but a priest would introduce me and then do a follow up to sort of officialize my not-a-homily-because-I'm-not-allowed-to-preach-a-homily. That's sort of an example of what I mean by "messy".
Similarly Constantine might even have thought of Himself as THE Big Enchilada, but the real enchiladas were more likely to say to each other "Bide your time," and, to him,"Yessir, that's very thoughtful of you, Sir, uh, Sir, would you mind putting down that legion? Or at least pointing it somewhere else?"
So when you look at things with a post 15th century mindset -- or maybe even a post 13th century mindset -- you get struck by all the messiness and think of it in terms of legal precedent and English common law and completely end up with the wrong end of the stick in your hand.
IMHO.
>>> Except that WOULD NOT be true, in Constantine's case it was. <<<
I think my point would be that before deciding whether your comment about either man is true or false, I'd have to have a clearer understanding of what you meant by your original statement.
Actually, I'm a Trinitarian, and I've read my Ronald Hutton (and others) and so I know that the folks who equate Easter with paganism are either deluded, sadly mistaken or are grinding an axe with little regard for the truth.
>>>Well, then you will be happy to know that certain FReepers consider you part of the "Roman church".<<<
Gee, I didn't know that being considered a member of the Church of Rome could be accomplished so effortlessley. I'm so naughty!
Right. Once again, please note that I'm arguing that in the context of the 4th century Mediterranean basin, there was no Pope of the Catholic Church,
>>> The fact that you are arguing something does not make it true. <<<
And the fact that you are making a riposte doesn't make your point true, either.
Oh, well, time to hit the books. Have a nice evening.
Well, Rome has purposefully avoided making a dogmatic condemnation of the Greek practice. Hence Trent’s circumlocution of (paraphrasing) “If anyone says the Church has erred ... by saying that divorce is not permitted, let him be anathema.”
“Well, Rome has purposefully avoided making a dogmatic condemnation of the Greek practice. Hence Trent’s circumlocution of (paraphrasing) “If anyone says the Church has erred ... by saying that divorce is not permitted, let him be anathema.””
No need to be reticent on our account, H.
“That whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the
Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds
out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the
Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized.”
or
“That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy
Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with
which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to fol-
low the newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion of the atheist
astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow
and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed
down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of
Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful.”
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.