Replies

“If the Pope has no historical supremacy, then the argument you are here putting forward (that I ought to be in submission to SOMEbody as long as it isn’t GOD)”

Your argument is that the Church is divided equally between the Patriarchs of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

Ergo, we as Christians have a responsibility to submit ourselves to one of these three. Hence my question, “which one of these three are you in submission to?”

You turn around and say, no, I’m not in submission to any of these three - which refutes your argument right there.

You don’t believe that the Church is divided equally between the three. This whole line of inquiry is a smokescreen.

What you do believe is that you, and you alone is the primary authority and that nobody tells you what you should believe and why.

“I would liked to have had the opportunity to sit and learn from Ignatius, who died a Bishop appointed by one of the Apostles DIRECTLY. It would be something to hear from him what it is like to die a man, being eaten by lions. Much better than dying a Papist, who is eaten by his Pope.”

And you lie when you say this. You have no intention of submitting yourself to anyone. :)

As for the claims of the Catholic church, I’ll be happy to discuss this with you when you are in submission to one of the three that you have claimed that you believe are the true authority.

“Your argument is that the Church is divided equally between the Patriarchs of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.”

Actually, my argument is that Gregory believed the western church was divided equally between the Bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. (I never said that was MY opinion.) I don’t believe it would be OK to consider Gregory as believing those THREE reigned over ALL the Bishops of the world with the quotes I supplied earlier.

It is enough, however, that it is not ONE reigning over the entire Church. And therefore, the Papacy is not something that always existed, but was an innovation.

Your argument that “Well, you still don’t AGREE with Gregory!!” is pure childishness. You don’t agree with Gregory either, but YOU are the one who claims an unbroken and eternal magisterium. Why do I have to agree with everything Gregory says when your entire premise of authority is undone by him? If the Roman Catholic church is true, then its traditions and history should be unbroken. Instead, we do not see this consistency, and you are, in fact, partaking of “anti-Christ” when you kneel to the Universal Bishop of Rome:

“In every age there have been those who considered the claims of a single bishop to supreme authority to be a sure identification of the corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the Antichrist. ~ Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604)

Now, do I believe that those three Bishops were in authority over the western church? I cannot tell you what all their doctrines were, (though even Gregory opposed Priestly forgiveness of sins) but the concept of the Primacy of Peter is also an innovation, as no such concept existed in any of the writings of Ignatius, Clement or Polycarp, who lived through the 1st century and into part of the second.

Who should I “submit” to? To Gregory who believed the innovation that Peter was First, and therefore the See of Peter had special authority over the Western Church beneath the feet of THREE Bishops? Or should I believe Ignatius, who argued that the head of the Bishop is God? Or should I believe the Apostles, who declared that the head of the Church is Christ?

If God is all sovereign over salvation, I would do better to follow Christ than any living sinner.

“Ergo, we as Christians have a responsibility to submit ourselves to one of these three.”

You’re free to do so. But since they’re all DEAD and their successors all in REBELLION, you’ll have to settle being a Protestant whose rule of faith is the scripture.

“This whole line of inquiry”

The whole basis of Papal authority is a SMOKESCREEN, I agree.