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

[JB]

This post could possibly set the tweb record for the most incorrect information in one post...

It's a contender, to be sure, but there's a loooooot of worthy competition...

[shunyadragon]

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

I have no more reason to believe the 'Catholic' claims of the LDS Church than the Roman Church.

[moreta]

OBP--If the big type doesn't get her attention, try adding bright pink. Or flashing neon green. It's got to sink in eventually. Nobody can be that dense and still function.

[Bill the Cat]

I have no more reason to believe the 'Catholic' claims of the LDS Church than the Roman Church.

Nice dome...