1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by Grailhunter, Aug 12, 2019.

  1. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    542
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    What rules? Nicea said a bishop should be elected by other bishops. That fell into disuse. Even laymen voted at times.

    Antipope Ursicinus - Wikipedia

    Liberius died on 24 September 366. The upper-class partisans of Felix threw their support to Damasus, but the opposing supporters of Liberius, the deacons and laity, supported Ursicinus; the two were elected simultaneously, in an atmosphere of rioting. Supporters already clashed at the beginning of October. Such was the violence and bloodshed that the two praefecti of the city were called in to restore order, and after a first setback, when they were driven to the suburbs and a massacre of 137 was perpetrated in the basilica of Sicininus (as cited in Ammianus Marcellinus), the prefects banished Ursicinus to Gaul. There was further violence when he returned, which continued after Ursicinus was exiled again.

    Church historians, such as Jerome and Rufinus, took the part of Damasus. At a synod in 378 Ursicinus was condemned and Damasus exonerated and declared the true pope. The former antipope continued to intrigue[vague] against Damasus for the next few years, and unsuccessfully attempted to revive his claim on Damasus's death. Ursicinus was among the Arian party in Milan, according to Ambrose (Epistle iv).

    A decree of 502 under Pope Symmachus ruled that laymen should no longer vote for the popes and that only higher clergy should be considered eligible.

    Things got quite crazy in the Crescentii era when Popes and Antipopes were installed using irregular methods.

    Papal selection before 1059 - Wikipedia

    Otto I's successor, Otto II, was impelled to conquer Rome in 980 to depose Antipope Boniface VII and install his preferred candidate Pope John XIV (983-4), without even feigning an election.[20]

    Pope John XV, the candidate of the Roman nobles upon the death of Otto II, did not survive long enough to be deposed by Otto III, who engineered the election of Pope Gregory V upon reaching Rome in 996.[20] However, Gregory V could not remain on the throne once Otto III headed back for Germany, and the Romans replaced him with Antipope John XVI temporarily until Otto III could return.[20] Otto III reinstalled Gregory V and secured the election of Pope Sylvester II (999-1003) upon his death, only to die himself shortly thereafter, allowing the Roman nobles to choose 3 popes of their own.


    Things were not always as orderly as we might like to think. Whoever had the bigger army seems to be who got to decide who the Pope was and who the Antipope was. It looks to me that whoever won got to declare the loser an Antipope -- and what the rules were.

    In 1119 most of the Cardinals were in Rome, but 10 Cardinals (6 Cardinal-bishops and 4 Cardinal-deacons) in Cluny voted anyway, with the idea they'd ask the whole College of Cardinals later.

    1119 papal election - Wikipedia

    The cardinals attending the death Mass of Gelasius II in Cluny in late January 1119 were divided over whether his successor should be elected on the spot (as was permitted by In Nomine Domini) or whether they should return to Rome and hold the election with the full College of Cardinals; although the cardinals proceeded with the election immediately, they agreed that they would submit their choice to the entire College thereafter.[3] The cardinals who accompanied Gleasius II to Cluny are known from the Liber Pontificalis associated with "Pandulphus" (either Pandulf of Pisa or Pandulf of Lucca), from the charter from Cluny, and from the chronicle of Ordericus Vitalis.[3]

    Although the contemporary accounts diverge on many points, it is clear across them that the two candidates who emerged were Guy and Pontius of Cluny, both named as candidates by the late pontiff.[4] The account of Gaufrid, prior of Vigois, relates that Gelasius II had preferred Pontius and predicted his election; Pontius was a far more conciliatory candidate, likely to negotiate a solution to the Investiture Controversy.[4] Two accounts in particular—those of Bernard of Carrion and Gaufrid of Vigois—detail the election of Guy, emphasizing the importance of his known confrontational stance towards Henry V (having previously excommunicated him) and his powerful family, the Salian dynasty.[4]

    At the time of his election as Callixtus II, Guy was in the company of his militia, which began rioting when it learned of his election, breaking into the election chamber and violently disrobing him, according to the Historia Compostelana.[5] Callixtus II proceeded to Sutri, the location of his opponent, Antipope Gregory VIII, appointed by Henry V, and laid siege to the city for eight days until Gregory VIII was handed over to him; Callixtus then imprisoned Gregory VIII in the Septizodium, from which the papal claimant was moved from monastery to monastery before his death in 1137.


    I've little doubt if Antipope Gregory VIII had had a better army, it would have been Callixtus II who got the title Antipope, and Gregory could have pointed out how the election was irregular.
     
  2. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,646
    Likes Received:
    4,657
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    You would need to show from Scripture that God actually allows the RE-SACRIFICE OF CHRIST daily. You will not find a single verse to support this bizarre and unbiblical idea.
     
  3. Philip James

    Philip James Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    Likes Received:
    992
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Because the Paschal mystery of Christ is not bound by time. The perpetual paschal mystery

    The sacrifices and feasts of the old covenant were signs and figures of Jesus life and Paschal mystery. It is because of Jesus' sacrifice that they were effecacious.

    We can discuss how the shadows show the reality of Jesus if you wish.

    But the new covenant is inaugurated at the last supper: 'this cup is the new covenant in my blood'

    The wedding is consumated here! It will be celebrated eternally!

    And you are bang on about our need to be pure before receiving. A thorough examination of concience is neccesary before participating in the feast.

    Peace be with you!
     
  4. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,121
    Likes Received:
    4,989
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    F, If priests know what they're doing...then we can be sure that they are NOT re-sacrificing Jesus.
    I've been told this by more than one priest that I trust.

    It's as if Jesus died that one time and it goes down through time and we have a remembrance of it which is like being at the foot of the cross.

    He is not sacrificed AGAIN, as many protestants believe.
     
    Giuliano and Philip James like this.
  5. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,121
    Likes Received:
    4,989
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    @Philip James is correct in post 303.

    Jesus is NOT sacrificed at every mass.
    There is only a remembrance of His sacrifice and we add to it by our gifts,,,which could be spiritual in nature or even physical....by offering up some trouble we've been through.

    As we Protestants say: We put the trouble at the altar.
     
    Grailhunter likes this.
  6. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    542
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Wrong again, sorry. The Bible does say not we should "divide" the word. The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword. The Word divides things -- like when God spoke and the light was divided from the darkness. The Word divides. It does not get divided. You fell for a poor translation.

    Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing <merismos in the Greek> asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart . . .

    The Word divides. It does not get divided. The word translated as "divide" in 2 Timothy 2:15 when it doesn't mean that.

    I like how the Darby Translation puts it:

    DARBY Strive diligently to present thyself approved to God, a workman that has not to be ashamed, cutting in a straight line the word of truth.

    I've also discussed this with an Orthodox priest who understood Greek; and he agreed. The Word of God is like a sword used to cut a straight line if used properly.

    That passage has nothing to do with how we should interpret the Bible. Can your Bible discern your thoughts and intents of your heart? Can your Bible divide soul and spirit? You have convinced me you read without understanding. When I read that in the KJV, "something" told me to check other translations. "Something" seemed to whisper to me, "Elsewhere it's said the Word divides. Here it says we should divide it. Look up to see if its' translated wrong." I did, and I found out it had been.

    Paul was also writing to Timothy, a bishop, urging him to be sure to keep things straight when dealing with the Word.

    So you may be spiritually deaf too. The idea of cannibalism is absurd since Jesus offered the Body and Blood of Christ before the physical crucifixion. It was never meant to read as eating his physical body and drinking his physical blood. I applaud too how the Catechism expresses it, "Body of Christ" and not "body of Jesus." No one is talking about the physical body of a physical man named Jesus. We are talking about the Body of Christ which is not physical. If the priest said, "body of Jesus," I'd want someone to slap him.

    Even the Bible almost always makes the distinction. It says "Blood of Jesus Christ" or "Blood of Christ" almost all the time. I think it says "blood of Jesus" only once.

    Only to those who can see and hear at least a little.

    What's the point then? You have a meaningless ritual. Again Paul's letter to Timothy comes to mind:

    2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    You have the form. You have a practice. You have a symbol. There is no power in it. You have also not explained how partaking unworthily could lead to damnation. I remind you too:

    Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    The sacrifice you talk about was in Heaven, not on earth.

    Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
    24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

    We must also be made pure if we wish to reach heavenly places. We must become like Jesus Christ. And our hope is that what Jesus made true in Heaven can be made true on earth. The Mass is a prayer asking that what is true now in the heavens be made true on earth.

    Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

    It is like manna in that regard but better. Manna was the symbol if we're looking for symbols.

    John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
    33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
    34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
    35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

    Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

    Can you believe the Bread of Life can still come down from Heaven? The Bread of Life can perform miracles. When the woman asked for her daughter to be healed, Jesus said no at first. Don't give bread to the dogs. That's exactly like a priest not denying someone Communion if he's in a state of sin. One should use the "Bread"or "Virtue" wisely. When Jesus changed his mind, it's because she changed hers and repented to become worthy. He did not give bread to a dog.
     
  7. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    542
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I think Enoch111 forgot the prayer Jesus gave, or did he think Jesus meant physical bread only?

    Luke 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

    We can be lazy and not work and ask God to provide physical food? I'd say that is a prayer for the Heavenly Bread to come down from Heaven.
     
    Philip James likes this.
  8. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,121
    Likes Received:
    4,989
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    Give us this day our daily bread means physical bread also.
    Man cannot live without food. God would want us not to go hungry.
    But it also means spiritual food.

    So are you saying communion is spiritual bread coming down from heaven?
    (I'm not sure what you mean).
     
  9. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,646
    Likes Received:
    4,657
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    That is TOTALLY FALSE. Please read my post quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I will now quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia from the article titled "Sacrifice of the Mass":

    A LITERAL SACRIFICE
    "...The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass" there can be and are in Christendom figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds... If the Mass is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the philosophical conception of sacrifice...

    THIS FALSE TEACHING ORIGINATED WITH IRENAEUS
    In a series of writings, Dr. Wieland, a Catholic priest, likewise maintained in the face of vigorous opposition from other theologians, that the early Christians confined the essence of the Christian sacrifice to a subjective Eucharistic prayer of thanksgiving, till Irenaeus (d. 202) brought forward the idea of an objective offering of gifts, and especially of bread and wine. He, according to this view, was the first to include in his expanded conception of sacrifice, the entirely new idea of material offerings (i.e. the Eucharistic elements) which up to that time the early Church had formally repudiated... But here unfortunately Catholics and Protestants part company. The latter can see in the Mass only a "denial of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ".

    AN UNAUTHORIZED HUMAN PRIEST SACRIFICES CHRIST
    Since ex vi verborum the consecration of the bread makes really present only the Body, and the consecration of the Chalice only the Blood, the tendency or the double consecration is towards a formal exclusion of the Blood from the Body. The mystical slaying thus approaches nearer to a real destruction and the absolute sacrificial moment of the Mass receives an important confirmation...

    Here the Council of Trent interposed with a definition of faith (Sess. XXII, can. iii): "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. . . but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, n. 950).


    In other words, non-Catholics are accursed (anathema) for rejecting the Catholic Mass!
     
  10. epostle

    epostle Active Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    184
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    If the papacy was no threat to Satan, he wouldn't bother attacking the Church and the papacy so heavily. But he has never prevailed, and never will. The Bible says that cannot happen. Attack, yes. Prevail, never.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  11. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    542
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I think it can mean both too. I give the spiritual meaning more importance since we can earn our own daily bread on our own most of the time. An Orthodox priest tried to explain what he thought the Greek original meant; but I confess I'm not that good with languages -- he did convince me he was right. The word translated as "daily" is odd since it appears only twice in the Bible. It seems to have been coined to convey a special meaning, I don't think it's found outside the Bible. It appears to mean something "necessary" in the sense of keeping alive daily. I think that priest used the word "supernal" was meant to be conveyed by that special word. There is likely something to the "necessary for the day" take on that word "daily" since we see that manna didn't fall every day.

    I think Jesus was bringing down Bread from Heaven when he said, I am the Bread of Life. When he was in a human body on earth, he could summon it down; and when he left, he wanted his followers to keep summoning it. He said this before the Crucifixion and before the Last Supper:

    John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

    He had already brought it down then; the Last Supper was telling them to keep asking. I can't say though that I believe a priest must do it for us.

    Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    That leads me to have a different take from Catholics on the idea that even a sinful priest can do it. If there is a sinful priest, I don't think he could; but the faith of the congregation would. God would not punish them for the sins, some hidden maybe even, for the sins of their priest. I agree with the Catholic Church that something can happen if the priest is sinful; but I disagree with them on the theory of why it is so. Yes, I know my view has been pronounced anathema -- but I believe any group of people of two or more can call down Bread from Heaven. For all I know, maybe a single person could; but it's probably better to have at least two. Indeed I believe some Protestants could be calling down that Bread even without the visible physical Bread. With God all things are possible.

    Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
    8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
    9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
    10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
    11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?


    Fish is a symbol of Christianity. The serpent of something else.
     
    GodsGrace likes this.
  12. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    542
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    It does not say the Papacy, as the visible earthly manifestation of the Rock, is eternal. Surely you don't interpret "church" to mean the visible church.

    The True Church is found in Heaven, built on the foundations of the twelve Apostles. The Jews misread their Scriptures when they read "for ever" with presumption. Pride goeth before a fall.

    How did God's promise to David play out? What was Solomon told?

    1 Kings 9:4 And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments:
    5 then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.
    6 But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them:
    7 then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:
    8 and at this house, which is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the Lord done thus unto this land, and to this house.

    Solomon was advised not to be presumptuous. God could keep his promise to David in a way that didn't mean one of his sons was sitting on the earthly throne of David in Jerusalem.

    The Church in Rome has survived for a long time; but the prophecy of St. Malachi might be true. He does not say the Church will fail, but he has a dire warning about when Peter returns to Rome. I suspect that the Church that may appear (perhaps soon) will be seen to founded solidly on the Rock, but in a way that surprises us all.

    Israel had the Rock. What happened to them? Did the Rock fail, or did the people fail?

    Deuteronomy 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

    Psalm 18:2 The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

    The question may be if the Church at Rome has waxed fat and kicked?

    As for Satan attacking the Rock at Rome, they would be more blessed if they had seen the wisdom in allowing it to be so for the Devil is defeated so. It's a different story when Bishops of Rome go out to attack Satan. That shows a lack of faith. Satan cannot damage the Rock by kicking it or throwing darts at it. Why then resort to violence to protect the Rock? Why ask heads of government for protection?

    Why were there antipopes? It's like Israel. When people were wicked, God allowed wicked men to rise up and seize power. I see some wisdom was gleaned godly men saw the antipopes at times. I am not even surprised that there were wicked Popes. I think God allowed it to chastise His servants. Sometimes it worked too. It worked a lot of times. When it worked, it was like Joseph -- what his brothers meant for evil was turned to good. When Popes did not learn from the attacks of the Devil, they failed to turn the evil into good -- and returned evil for evil. It undermined the visible earthly manifestation of the Church Eternal.

    If you ask me, I think the Pope at the time the Nicene Council was called shouldn't have agreed to it. It undermined his authority as final arbiter when differences arose among bishops and Patriarchies. When he signed on to some of the things that weakened Rome, he was binding them and making them so. Before Nicea when people couldn't settle differences, they appealed to Rome. History shows that. After Nicea and especially after the imaginary Patriarchies of Constantinople were created out of thin air, the Popes had even less authority. When Rome finally agreed later to Jerusalem and Constantinople being Patriarchies, they were tricked and signed away even more authority. Gregory the Great was right in refusing to accept them as Patriarchies in my opinion. Constantinople said they wanted to work out their differences with Rome; and the Pope thought they were sincere so he went against Gregorys' precedent and accepted Constantinople. They they walked away without reconciling things -- and today they even say Rome failed to address the issues. I could go on with how Popes limited their power by agreeing to giving away their authority; and when they did that, it was binding. Where does it all end? I don't know.
     
  13. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,646
    Likes Received:
    4,657
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Well the Reformers and the SDA believe that the papacy is the Antichrist. I don't agree with them, but they may have a point. Take a very hard look at what the papacy has been up to for the last 1500 years. Nothing to crow about.
     
  14. Enoch111

    Enoch111 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,646
    Likes Received:
    4,657
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    According to Scripture, every church in every city was autonomous and the elders of each church were responsible for that church and none other. The epistle to the Romans certainly does not say anything about any church being accountable Rome. So Rome USURPED the authority of Christ. That is a rather serious matter.

    The church of Rome created a fantasy about Peter, and then kept creating more fantasies.
     
  15. epostle

    epostle Active Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    184
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    I interpret "Church" in the broadest sense, to be an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist. The Church in heaven is not visible to us, but the Church on earth is very visible. It's one Church.
     
  16. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    542
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    And by the time of Nicea, various bishops would assemble under another head-bishop they called a Metropolitan. Nicea said the the other bishops in the synod should vote when a bishop died and had to be replaced. Today Rome has to approve every Bishop or he can't be a Bishop. His representative goes and talks to bishops in that synod and gets a list of three -- and the Pope chooses who the new Bishop will be.

    It's led to horrible results at times. I think it's clear that some cunning people lied to Pope Francis about the man in Chile that he made a Bishop. Francis was so sure that man was saintly. He accused people in Chile of making things up and attacking the Church. When the facts came in, Francis realized he'd be fooled and apologized. What Pope can possibly know everything going on around the world? The local people know more.

    Then we see more deceit by Bishops in smaller dioceses. If they want a promotion to another more important diocese, they have to impress Rome and flatter the Pope and the Curia. They also tried to cover up crimes to make themselves look good so they could get a promotion. Fooling the Pope became more important to these wolves than protecting the sheep in their congregations. Then after they got the great spot they wanted, sometimes a good man took their place in their previous diocese -- and all hell would break loose. The good man was left picking up the pieces and cleaning up the mess while the bad guy was sitting in his new position trying to pass the buck to others when he was the fellow in charge. That moving Bishops around was also forbidden by Nicea. When the Pope picks Bishops, he's going to get some of the blame when their crimes are involved.

    Part of the problems in the Protestant rebellion was over Bishops because kings wanted to help pick who the Bishops were and then have the Pope approve them. If the Pope annoyed a king, that king might not the money that was supposed to be collected and sent to Rome until he got what he wanted from the Pope.

    Kings holding back money like that made the Popes struggle financially. That's why they resorted to selling indulgences and accepted bribes to make someone a Bishop. I think Lutheranism was more about money than religion. When the Catholics put him on trial, they pronounced him a heretic and released him.

    The story told later was his kidnapping was staged in order to protect him. I don't think so. I think the people who kidnapped him wanted his support in starting a new church -- mostly to stop sending money to Rome. I don't buy the cover story that it was a faked kidnapping. After all, he love of money. . . .

    It spread like a fever. When other monarchs saw they could confiscate church property, they jumped at it, using religion as their excuse -- and the people they set up a Bishops said, "Yes, that's right." When Henry VIII seized all the church property, do you think any English Bishops told him that was wrong? Of course, we also have to ask why the Bishops of Rome wanted all that money from lands they owned in Europe. Again, the love of money. . . .

    One of the most outlandish frauds ever was the "Donation of Constantine" which said the Emperor had given the Pope all kinds of things. People believed it for years. Again, it was about the love of money and power.

    Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia

    The text, purportedly a decree of Roman Emperor Constantine I dated 30 March, in a year mistakenly said to be both that of his fourth consulate (315) and that of the consulate of Gallicanus (317), contains a detailed profession of Christian faith and a recounting of how the emperor, seeking a cure for his leprosy, was converted and baptized by Pope Sylvester I. In gratitude, he determined to bestow on the seat of Peter "power, and dignity of glory, and vigour, and honour imperial", and "supremacy as well over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth". For the upkeep of the church of Saint Peter and that of Saint Paul, he gave landed estates "in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, Italy and the various islands". To Sylvester and his successors he also granted imperial insignia, the tiara, and "the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions".[4][5]

    What may perhaps be the earliest known allusion to the Donation is in a letter of 778, in which Pope Hadrian I exhorts Charlemagne, whose father, Pepin the Younger, had made the Donation of Pepin granting the Popes sovereignty over the Papal States, to follow Constantine's example and endow the Roman Catholic church.

    The first pope to directly invoke the decree was Pope Leo IX, in a letter sent in 1054 to Michael I Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople.[3]He cited a large portion of the document, believing it genuine,[6][7] furthering the debate that would ultimately lead to the East–West Schism. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the Donation was often cited in the investiture conflicts between the papacy and the secular powers in the West.[3]


    How it fooled people I don't know. Constantine wasn't baptized by Pope Sylvester I; and Constantine could not have given the Pope supremacy over the other four principle sees since Jerusalem and Constantinople weren't recognized as that then. So we find that the Papal States were based on a fraud. Someone forget that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Surely this weakened the credibility of the Popes, even the good ones. Rome was also trying to usurp the authority of Antioch and Alexandia along with Jerusalem and Constantinople. It led to a lot of trouble.
     
  17. Giuliano

    Giuliano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    542
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Do you think that every person who calls himself a Catholic is part of the Spiritual Church? We pray, "Thy kingdom come" and that includes all fractures in the earthly churches to be one. I have more respect for the people in the pews than I do for the Bishops who criticize Pope Francis openly instead of offering advice privately.

    I also ask how many Patriarchs of Antioch can exist in a Church united by the Eucharist? There are three that are said to be in communion with Rome. No one can solve this problem, not even the Pope? If there can be three of them, why can't there be two Popes in communion? The visible church does not look that unified to me if they can't work this problem out over who the real Patriarch of Antioch is. Then there were Patriarchs without an actual see. A shepherd with no sheep? It leaves me scratching my head.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  18. epostle

    epostle Active Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    184
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    @Giuliano
    The Church is distinctive among institutions in the history of mankind: it is human and yet divine; perfect, yet in need of reform; holy, yet made up of sinners; infallible, yet led by fallen, fallible humans. That’s a hard concept to express to someone outside the Church—sometimes it’s hard for us inside the Church to remember it.

    While many seem to disregard the study of history as a wasteful pastime, events in Catholic Church history are often used to attack us. Based on ignorance, prejudice, or confusion, people know, or think they know, something about our Church’s past that is scandalous, cruel, or just bad. They use this misinformation or some distorted view of an event to attack the Church’s credibility on current moral issues, as if to say an institution that can perpetrate such misdeeds in the past can’t tell me what to do with my body (artificial birth control, abortion, fornication, etc.); it can’t tell me what’s right and what’s wrong.

    The pope is infallible only when teaching on matters of faith and morals. The Church has never taught that the pope is impeccable, unable to err in practical matters and actions.
    Knowing Enough History to Defend It: Catholic History and Apologetics - Homiletic & Pastoral Review
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
  19. Philip James

    Philip James Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    Likes Received:
    992
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    That the barque of Peter continues to sail on despite the many attempt to destroy it, and despite the sabatoge and failings of men within it, is itself a miracle imo.

    What's that old story about Napoléon telling a cardinal he would destroy the church? The response was something like ' give it your best shot. We've been trying for 1800 years and haven't been able to...' o_O

    Peace be with you!
     
  20. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,121
    Likes Received:
    4,989
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    I agree and you've written some interesting thoughts.
    It almost sounds like you agree that the host is the real presence of Jesus....
    Do we need a priest? Good question. You say no.
    Then how would the presence come into the wafer/host/cracker/bread?
    Would a pastor do this?
    Does God do this automatically when He is called upon in whatever way a particular denomination uses?

    Great explanation about the "daily" word.
    I've never heard this before but it makes a lot of sense.

    Ooops. Are you answering my questions above?!
    The CC teaches that even if the priest is sinful,,,his words still have an effect and whatever he is doing will still function in the spiritual realm...example: Consecration, baptism, marriage, etc.
    So are you actually saying that you believe any person could consecrate a host? I mean change it to the real presence?

    Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
    8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
    9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
    10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
    11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?


    Fish is a symbol of Christianity. The serpent of something else.[/QUOTE]
    I think what you've quoted above means actually real bread...
    A father will always give a son what he asks.
    (well, not always!).

    Asking for a fish: something good
    the father won't give a serpent: something harmful to the son
     
    Giuliano likes this.
Loading...