The RCC does NOT have the divine rights it claims to have.

[jo7241974]

Who are we to believe? The orthodox teachings of the church through 800AD, or the re-written orthodox teachings of the RCC?

Much of the source of my article comes from the book, “History of the Church in France”, written by L’Abbe Guettee, which has been censured by the RCC. It can be downloaded for free from: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf As such, it can be quoted without constraint with no need for prior approval. Direct quotes from the book are Italicized.

It is only the RCC who interprets the talk between Jesus and Peter wherein they claim Peter was made the cornerstone of the church. Indeed, no divine authority was recognized as being possessed by ANY church leader. This was NOT an orthodox belief for the first 800 years of the church, at which time Nicholas, following in the steps of Adrian, pushed for Roman primacy like at no other time during the history of the church up to that time. In fact, Peter was against such an organization of the church. All of the Apostles enjoyed the same authority and power which Peter possessed. Paul was more instrumental in establishing the church in Rome than was Peter. We also have the conversation between Paul and Peter where Paul is arguing that Peter is wrong; at which point Peter succumbs to Paul’s persuasion. If, as the RCC claims, that it is the Pope of Rome who has final say, and is accountable to no other, then how is it that Paul had the final say in this argument? Amazingly, Nicholas even believed himself to be the depositary of divine authority, AND the organ of the Holy Spirit!! Such a belief is NOT supported by the Bible!! It is not only heretical, it is a sign of Apostasy, for Nicholas has turned his back on God and His teaching that the Holy Spirit is a gift to ALL of mankind.

Let us not forget that St.Linus was the first Bishop of Rome; Peter was the Bishop of Antioch. Additionally, Tertullian: mentions the Bishops of Rome in the same order as St. Irenæus, and designates Linus as the first, and Anencletus as the second. He only claims for Rome the succession of St. Peter, by ordination, from St. Clement, third bishop of that city. "Let those," he said, “who boast of dating back to apostolic times, show by the succession of their bishops, that they derive their origin from an Apostle or an apostolic man, as the Church of Smyrna proves that Polycarp was ordained by John, or as the Church of Rome shows that Clement was ordained by Peter." We might infer from this, that Linus and Anencletus were ordained by St. Paul, who in that case, had organized the Roman Church before Peter.

Gregory wrote a letter to the Emperor at Constantinople: “I pray your Imperial Piety," he says, “to observe that there are some frivolous things that are inoffensive, but also some others that are very hurtful. When Antichrist shall come and call himself God, it will be in itself a perfectly frivolous thing, but a very pernicious one. If we only choose to consider the number of syllables in this word, we find but two, (De-us;) but if we conceive the weight of iniquity of this title, we shall find it enormous. I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, THE PRECURSOR OF ANTICHRIST, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The errour into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others."

However, after usurping the power of Papal Primacy from the rest of the church, the RCC claims that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is infallible and impeccable. Yet Pope Honorius I, due to his approval of Monothelism was declared a heretic and was made anathema. If he was infallible and impreccable, how could he have warranted being a heretic and anathema?? Would this not have created a legitimate break in the succession of infallible and impeccable Popes?? He remains recognized as a legitimate Pope by the RCC.


THAT THE PAPACY, BY HER NOVEL AND AMBITIOUS PRETENTIONS, WAS THE CAUSE OF THE SCHISM BETWEEN THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCHES.

WE have shown, First, that the Bishops of Rome did not enjoy universal authority during the first eight centuries of the Church. Secondly, That they were not then considered either as the centre of unity or as the source of jurisdiction. Thirdly, That they were not supposed to be invested of divine right with any prerogatives whatever as successors of St. Peter.

If, after the ninth century, they put forward in respect of these three points pretensions contrary to the established and universal doctrine of the first eight centuries ; if they undertook to subject the whole Church to their sovereign authority; if they assumed to be the necessary centre of unity and the source of jurisdiction, we must conclude that they have sought to usurp a power to which they had no right. If these usurpations provoked energetic resistance on the part of the Eastern Church; if the Bishops of Rome made the recognition of their usurped power a condition precedent to reunion, it must follow that the Papacy is the first and direct cause of the division.


By the year 1054AD, the schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Orthodox Church was made official and permanent. At that point we can see where the Papacy basically rewrote their own history, as well as their own “orthodoxy”, and claimed their succession of Popes beginning with Peter.

The significance of this rewriting of what was orthodox has an unavoidable tremendous impact on what most of Christendom considers to be orthodox. The Protestant denominations born of the Reformation, if they cling to the RCC version of what was orthodox, are being sadly misled; thus perpetuating false beliefs of what was really considered to be orthodox.

To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the only true church. To this day, they do not have one central governing authority claiming to be either the vicar of Christ, or to be the only source of rule over all other churches, including the churches established as part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, of which there are many.

With all of the above in mind, how can the RCC ignore the first 800 years of the church and still claim to have the divine right of Papal Primacy by claiming the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, who is infallible and is not to be questioned?

Regards,

jo

[ke7ejx]

Are we really going to have to hash this out again?

[One Bad Pig]

From the author's introduction:

We need only divest the Papacy of the glory it has usurped, that the Church Catholic may at once appear in her majestic perpetuity, in her universality. The Papacy has narrowed it to the point of presuming to comprehend the whole Church in itself. Tear away these glittering pretensions, and the Christian society will appear marching with unbroken progress through ages, preserving inviolate the deposit of revelation, protesting against every error, whether emanating from Rome or elsewhere; accepting as her rule only the catholic rule founded upon the Word of God, of which the Councils and the Fathers are the organs.
In this holy society there are neither Greeks nor Barbarians, but Christians only, who can say with St. Pacian, "Christian is my name; Catholic my surname," because they believe without exception in all fullness (Kath ólon) the doctrine taught by the Master and preserved intact by the Church in all ages and in all places. This great truth is concisely expressed by the well-known words of Vincent of Lerins:
“Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus."
The Pope would, in his own interest, limit the Church to such as acknowledge his sovereignty, that he might then absorb them and say, "I am the Church." Let us break down the barriers he has raised, and we shall at once see the Church in all her beauty, expanding in freedom, unshackled by territorial boundaries, owning as its members all particular churches, bound together by the same faith, communing with one another through pastors alike apostolic, made one in Jesus Christ, the great Pontiff, the sole Head of the Church, and in the Holy Spirit its guide.

It makes little sense for you to rail against one subset of orthodox Christianity when you think all of orthodox Christianity is corrupt.

Also, you're quoting from The Papacy, not History of the Church in France - which is the book mentioned in the introduction as having been censured.

[Xru]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black . . .

A LDS complaining about the authority of the RCC while their founding prophet was a two-bit lying huckster?

[franktalk]

Nice post jo. When I first came to Christ I wanted to know what the truth was. In my search through scriptures and history I found that truth is found everywhere if the Holy Ghost helps you see it. Scripture is nice and I read it a lot but it is not all. What is way more important is the communication I have directly with God. When I find anyone who tries and place them self between me and God I know that they are antiChrist. All words of men have to be checked against scripture as interpreted by the Holy Ghost. This includes prophets.

In reading the history of the early Church I was not surprised by what I read.

[jo7241974]

Are we really going to have to hash this out again?

Yes, I certainly am. Since what is considered to be orthodox is of such great importance to Christendom, then Christendom should be interested in learning that there is more than one version of what is considered orthodox by the ancient church. Do you understand, for instance, that since it is believed that Paul is the one who ordained the first and second Bishops of Rome, that Peter is NOT the one who passed along his authority to them? Yet it is Peter whom the RCC claim as their authoritative line of succession?

Do you understand that for the first 800 years of the ancient church, the church at Rome was NOT considered the head of the church? In fact, she merely took over at that time - and out of over 600 plus Bishops from both the East and the West, fewer than 1/3 of them ratified this take over?? This is what caused the first major schism (though there had been other smaller ones prior to this) in the church? The schism was caused by the Roman See in her quest for power.

One of the popes was determined to be a heretic and was made anathema; yet their double speak claims that the Pope is infallible. So....which is it? Is the Pope truly infallible? Or does the fact that a Pope can be a heretic and made anathema just another part of their definition for infallibility?

I would think that members of the RCC would want to know their own true history. The rest of the ancient church has never recognized the legitimacy of the RCC; and it was not until 800 AD that the RCC itself declared their own Papal supremacy. Yet they claim that their supremacy has existed since the time of Peter, who they now say was the first Pope.

Love,

jo

[Cow Poke]

Are we really going to have to hash this out again?

Again? Or still.

[Catholicity]

Again? Or still.

How about this why is it that the RCC gets attacked immediately. Can we not look at the flaws in ourselves 1st?

[Xru]

Frankly, I've never accepted the authority of the Pope over all Christendom.

I don't see it provided for in the NT nor in Paul's ministry. Is there ANY controversy over this other than the RCC paper-pushers and politicians grabbed the authority and placed it at Rome.

Perhaps someone can enlighten my, but there need be no convincing here.

This just seems to be another smear job on the RCC as a way to get at Christendom in general. I'm not interested in doing that . . . especially 'cause the RCC has cleaned house perhaps not totally but that's the pencil-necks and paper-pushers in Rome not the RCC faithful's problem.

Do you jo and frank really think that informed Christians are not versed on this subject. All it takes is a very small intellect, some reading and a brain that amounts to two bits.

AND I'm going about saying the above in my nice mode . . . I could be much more animated about it.

[jo7241974]

How about this why is it that the RCC gets attacked immediately. Can we not look at the flaws in ourselves 1st?

Hi Cath,

That would be nice. However, the LDS are considered to not be Christians BY orthodoxy. All the posters do is attack, attack, attack against the LDS; they Judge us, and tell us we are damned for all eternity. We are not allowed to post on the "Christian" forums. Additionally, they deny claims that make any part of Christendom guilty of any major sins. They choose to accept the re-written and un-true history of the church as they continue to disparage the LDS. Therefore, I am revealing the lies and the outrageous sins of orthodox Christianity. Unfortunately, since the RCC is the major player (at least according to them) since Jesus established His church, it is the RCC that gets most of the attention in seeking the true history of the church. As I continue to go through the history of the church, the Protestants aren't going to get any glowing reports either. Both the Catholic and the other Christian denominations represented on this site claim that they are all happy and part of the body of Christ. Yet today's Pope has come out in recent years to claim that the Protestants are NOT saved. So, who is kidding who? More importantly, neither have the Divine Authority to judge who is saved.

I will also offer that at the time of the Reformation, the Protestants were not considered Christian. They suffered persecution at the hands of the RCC. Today, the Protestants are calling the LDS not Christian, just like they were considered not Christian not so long ago.

Love,

jo

[jo7241974]

This just seems to be another smear job on the RCC as a way to get at Christendom in general. I'm not interested in doing that . . . especially 'cause the RCC has cleaned house perhaps not totally but that's the pencil-necks and paper-pushers in Rome not the RCC faithful's problem.

Do you jo and frank really think that informed Christians are not versed on this subject. All it takes is a very small intellect, some reading and a brain that amounts to two bits.

Hi Xru,

Actually, if you were to go back and read more of the past LDS forum threads, you would see that the posters are NOT well versed on this subject; as they have chosen to believe in the re-written version of the history of Christianity. It is my sincere hope that the posters here on Tweb are NOT representative of the majority of Christians.

Love,

jo

[Cow Poke]

Hi Cath,

That would be nice. However, the LDS are considered to not be Christians BY orthodoxy. All the posters do is attack, attack, attack against the LDS;

We ask questions and tell the Truth.

they Judge us, and tell us we are damned for all eternity.

drama

We are not allowed to post on the "Christian" forums.

You have your very own Mormon forum on a Christian website. And you're always free to fund and run your own website and confine us to a Christian forum.

Additionally, they deny claims that make any part of Christendom guilty of any major sins. They choose to accept the re-written and un-true history of the church as they continue to disparage the LDS. Therefore, I am revealing the lies and the outrageous sins of orthodox Christianity.

You're on a roll! Lemme help....

They have refused us assent to their Campus Decorum, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

They have forbidden their moderators to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till their assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.

They have refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to Antis only.

They have called together groups of moderators in hidden places, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing the Mormons into compliance with their moderation.

They have dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the rights of the Mormons.....



Jo, you are as much a Church Historian as I am a 70 lb. Ballerina.

As I continue to go through the history of the church, the Protestants aren't going to get any glowing reports either.

Lemme show you something... it's my shocked face...

Both the Catholic and the other Christian denominations represented on this site claim that they are all happy and part of the body of Christ. Yet today's Pope has come out in recent years to claim that the Protestants are NOT saved.

Fortunately, my Salvation rests in the hands of Jesus.

So, who is kidding who? More importantly, neither have the Divine Authority to judge who is saved.

Neither does Joseph Smith or the Mormon Church.

I will also offer that at the time of the Reformation, the Protestants were not considered Christian. They suffered persecution at the hands of the RCC. Today, the Protestants are calling the LDS not Christian, just like they were considered not Christian not so long ago.

Love,

jo

Jo, How does ANY of this attack on Christianity make Smith any less a liar and false prophet, and the Mormon Church any less convoluted?


Bless your heart.

[Xru]

Hi Xru,

Actually, if you were to go back and read more of the past LDS forum threads, you would see that the posters are NOT well versed on this subject; as they have chosen to believe in the re-written version of the history of Christianity. It is my sincere hope that the posters here on Tweb are NOT representative of the majority of Christians.

Love,

jo

I don't know jo. I don't know all that many Christians well . . . do any of us know others well? People are not inclined to talk about such things, in my experience.

Maybe I'm a lot different that many Christians here on TWeb . . . I've know for a long time about he duplicity and horrible dishonesty in the RCC. I've always been suspicious ot administration of any denomination, Protestant, RCC or ORC. They can do some pretty bad stuff. And so have Protestants when there were great wars in Europe between Protestants and Protestants, Protestants and RC, and Protestant/RCC vs Protestants.

Some of that greed and outright lying still persists in the RCC as far as I can tell, but they have done a great deal to clean up their act as have the Protestant. I can only believe that LDS are trying to clean up their act too. Everyone has skeletons in the closet as they say.

Then there are posts about how what 50 million were executed for heresy in the middle-ages. That's absolute BS. Was the Inquisition horrible? Absolutely, but to claim 50 million is stupid. It just undermines the case against the Inquisition.

There is plenty of dirt to kick around about Protestants, LDS, and RCC without conflating the charges and to make all three look really really bad. So why make exaggerated claims that virtually no one other than extremists would defend. Not smart.

Is it bad enough to claim that 50,000 were killed during the Inquisition? Yes. Does 50,000,000 make it any worse? No. Because even one life lost to the Inquisition would be too much.

If anyone wants to indict Protestant, LDS or RCC they can find plenty of generally accepted information to do that.

Is it possible and probable that some history of the Christian church has been revised . . . I haven't read a lot about that. But I sure wouldn't be surprised if it had happened . just like the leaders of LDS are trying to put spin on the history of the LDS, and just like the RCC and Protestant administrators would try and do if they got their pantyhose in a bind. Pencil-necks and paper-pushers DO this kind of stuff. It's called politics.

The questions that concerns me is does any of that crap have anything to do with my salvation or the salvation of my Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Probably not. I think, I hope that the essential messages of the Bible have been left alone by the disingenuous so we can study the word and try and live out our lives following the path.

[Xru]

Hi Cath,

That would be nice. However, the LDS are considered to not be Christians BY orthodoxy. All the posters do is attack, attack, attack against the LDS; they Judge us, and tell us we are damned for all eternity. We are not allowed to post on the "Christian" forums. Additionally, they deny claims that make any part of Christendom guilty of any major sins. They choose to accept the re-written and un-true history of the church as they continue to disparage the LDS. Therefore, I am revealing the lies and the outrageous sins of orthodox Christianity. Unfortunately, since the RCC is the major player (at least according to them) since Jesus established His church, it is the RCC that gets most of the attention in seeking the true history of the church. As I continue to go through the history of the church, the Protestants aren't going to get any glowing reports either. Both the Catholic and the other Christian denominations represented on this site claim that they are all happy and part of the body of Christ. Yet today's Pope has come out in recent years to claim that the Protestants are NOT saved. So, who is kidding who? More importantly, neither have the Divine Authority to judge who is saved.

I will also offer that at the time of the Reformation, the Protestants were not considered Christian. They suffered persecution at the hands of the RCC. Today, the Protestants are calling the LDS not Christian, just like they were considered not Christian not so long ago.

Love,

jo

When you make comments like "they" that is over-inclusive and diminishes your arguments. Always be, or try to be specific. Like "All the posters do is attack, attack, attack against the LDS . . " and change it to something like "It seem to me that many, IMO, posters, a lot of posts are attack after attack after attack." When you make all inclusive statements like the above it is a real turn-off for the reader.

BTW, I have never said that I think any LDS is damned for eternity . . . so you are wrong there. Consider the exceptions to your statements and speak to them. They are always there.

Stop whining . . . of course you are not allowed to post on Christian forums . . . this is a Christian forum, and is Christian owned. LDS see Christians and apostate. What the heck do you expect, jo.

I don't accept the re-written and un-true history of the Christian church but for evidence you are going to come up with some rather compelling documentation and rightfully so. I get the same thing when I talk ToE in NS301 . . . and that's understandable. If you want to change someones opinion be smart about it jo . . . talk their language!!!!

The RCC officially does consider Protestants apostate . . right. So . .. I'm not kidding myself about the conflicts between RCC and Protestants. I don't acknowledge Romes authority over all Christendom. It's BS. But that doesn't stop me from loving my Brothers and Sisters in Christ in the RCC.

Once again stop whining . . . the LDS consider the Protestants as apostate too. This is political BS. Do you believe that Jesus is your savior and all that stuff. Of course you do. Let the idiot administrators of the different Christian groups fight it out and pay attention to you own salvation is my suggestion.

I'm still open to the "possibility" that Smith was a prophet. I think that would be cool. But from what I can gather he was not. Does that change how I think about you and your devotion to Jesus and God. NO.

As far as I can see you are very frustrated and angry at your position not being tolerated hear. So that's life. What do you think you are going to have happen hear? Is it fair? Maybe not. But, jo, as you know LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

[lilpixieofterror]

Are we really going to have to hash this out again?

It's Jo's issue so yeah...