Oh, I could have phrased it differently, but that term does convey my opinion you've crossed over from simple vanity to wanton conceit.
But they, either of the East or the West, never said anything as profoundly ridiculous as that it refers to the Pope of Rome.
But neither did they deny it, did they? Otherwise, you would have produced it by now. Glass houses, indeed! :P
BTW, pt, do you read Jude 11 to mean that all who do not submit (I love to use that word with the Pope)to the Pope of Rome are cursed and will surely come to a bad end? Do you really believe that, pt? Please tell me yes so we can all have a good laugh at your expense. I'll even ping the orthodox list if you'd like! :)
Yes.
I case you haven't noticed, your scorn means little to me beyond the fascination of watching a small child breath threats of retribution.
Of course I should add the caveat that the genuinely ignorant can't be judged by the same standard as the willfully disbelieving, per the standard laid down in Romans 1.
K:”BTW, pt, do you read Jude 11 to mean that all who do not submit (I love to use that word with the Pope)to the Pope of Rome are cursed and will surely come to a bad end? Do you really believe that, pt? Please tell me yes so we can all have a good laugh at your expense. I’ll even ping the orthodox list if you’d like! :)
P: Yes.”
Just so I get this straight, you’ve now added Feeneyism to your violation of a Decree of the Council of Trent? You’re not really a Catholic, are you; more a conservative CINO.
How can you deny something that never existed? When Pope +Leo I (5th century) argued for strong papacy based on the Bible, he did not use Jude 11 or Numbers 16 as scriptural "evidence" that Moses prefigured Peter and Peters' successors at Rome.
If he did, the Church would have denied it, because no one in the Church, Latin or Greek, understood it to mean that. What Pope argues that Jude 11 or Numbers 16 does? As far as I know, they use Matthew 16 for that purpose.