Replies

Yah. He was never the Archbishop of Constantinople, either. So what? That's not what I'm arguing, and you should know that by now. Constantine the Great WAS pontifex maximus at the time that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

>>> 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.

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...

Once again please note that I'm telling you that you are wrong.

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?

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.

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.

In the fourth century, there was a Pope (or more correctly, Patriarch) of the Western Church, Bishop of Rome and in charge of what is now the UK, France, Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Monaco, San Marino, Morocco, algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Croatia, Albania, Hungary, parts of Romania etc. He was and IS the first among the 4 original bishoprics (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome), which has since been expanded to include Constantinople etc.

Anyway, so what we now have as the office of the Pope of the Catholic Church namely the shepherd given the duty of looking aftern the Western Church IS still there and was there in the 3rd century and before.