sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
Well
A) It does. Note how it mentions "Catholic" Claims having been settled. The term Catholic was used to refer to the Church as early as like, the year 100 something.
B) Those are just titles for the Catholic Church... The Bishop of Rome... aka The Pope, was considered the "head" of Christianity before the First council of Nicaea. He worked as the "head" of the three main Bishops of Rome, Antioch... and Alexandria I want to say.
C) The Bishop of Rome is also known as the Pope.
|
A. The term wasn't used in the sense you think it was. The term means 'all-embracing', and was originally used as an adjective to stress the universality of the Christian Church (unlike Judaism for example, anybody was welcomed to become a Christian; there were no ethnical constraints to conversion). It was later adopted by the Western Church as part of their official name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic#History_of_ecclesiastical_use_of_.22catholic.22
B. Obviously that is the Catholic POV. Non-Catholics clearly disagree with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#The_Role_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome
The Bishop of Rome was never seen as the head of the Christian Church.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
Check item #41. While the bishop of Rome was seen as protos, that didn't mean that he was the head of the Church, or that he had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church.
|
A) Except... it excluded christians like Gnostics. The universal church WAS the Catholic Church.
B) They may disagree with it... but they're wrong and only wish to disagree with it because they don't like the Catholics.
C) Again... that's simply splitting hairs. Heck the rest of the numbers after 41 basically admt this as it talks about the authority of the pope.
If he wasn't the head of the Christian Church... who was? The term protos is just a splitting head term to ignore the fact that Eastern Orhtodox is a branch religion. I mean it was specifically made up for that reason.
|
A. No, it wasn't. There was no Catholic Church then. I thought I already explained this. *sigh*
B. Or Catholics are wrong and don't want to admit it, because that would mean admitting that the Pope is a power-hungry con artist. The stakes are high for both sides (more so for Catholics). And considering that Catholics have a history of fabricating fictions to support the ideea of the Pope's supremacy (see, the Donation of Constantine), I'm inclined to think they're in the wrong.
C. It's not splitting hairs, it's just the reality of it. The bishop of Rome never had the prerogatives that the Pope currently has in the Catholic Church, and he was no more a successor to Peter as any other bishop.
Anyways, I can't believe we're actually having this conversation. I for one have no personal stake in this issue (for obvious reasons), and I assume neither do you, so I'm gonna bow out and leave this to the Vatican vs. the rest of the Christian world.
|
The Catholic Church started with the Bishop of Rome, aka Pope becoming leader.
That he wasn't as strong a leader as he is now is irrelevent.
Nor does he being a successor to Peter matter.
All that matters is, he was the leader of the Church at the time. Which the made up word Proto was made up, specifically to admit, but not admit that the Eastern Orthodox Church is a breakaway.
