Democracy in the Church

[Cam42]

Appy and I are still waiting for you to prove your argument about Pope St. Leo I. Or are you simply going to continue to use the rambings of a 92 year old priest who may or may not have any credence on this issue, Fr. McNamara...... :crackup:

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 12 2005, 07:17 AM']RESPONSE:

Please note that my thread on the the contradictions in scripture because of the many writers and different time in which it was written was closed by Kilroy , since there were no rebuttals to the evidence I presented.

Simnply by comparing the different passages themselves proved the point.
[right][snapback]640587[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ash, all you have to do is go back and look to the thread [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=34959&hl="]By whom and when was scripture written?[/url]

It will be easy to see just who refuted whom.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Jul 12 2005, 01:29 AM']Of course you mean [b]Mrs.[/b] Ewart Lewis.  

From what I have gathered it is a very well respected translation, enough to be used by Historians at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Oxford.  But what do they know, Leslie has spoken, the translation is [i] inaccurate and very incomplete [/i]. :bugeyes:
[right][snapback]640556[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes indeed. Very incomplete. Count the number of words in each. There is a substantial difference!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 12 2005, 07:21 AM']Appy and I are still waiting for you to prove your argument about Pope St. Leo I.  Or are you simply going to continue to use the rambings of a 92 year old priest who may or may not have any credence on this issue, Fr. McNamara......  :crackup:
[right][snapback]640599[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I already did. Check yesterday's posts. Or if you'd like still another quotation of Leo's there is this:

Leo I ,Sermon III, "In my humble person St. Peter may be recognized and honoured, in whom the care of all sheperds, together with the charge of the sheep commended to him, and whose dignity is not abated even in so unworthy a heir."

Translated: "I am the boss!" "Regard me as Peter!"

[LittleLes]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Jul 12 2005, 07:09 AM']I think you meant 'personal power'.  But that is your SUBJECTIVE analysis.  The more accurate analysis would be consistent with what the Church and Popes have said they are.  Princes kissing the feet of the Pope means that Earthly power or authority is indirectly derived from God so it is subordinate to the more clear and direct instances of Divine Authority on Earth, which is the Church and those in Apostolic succession.

[color=orange][b]CORN[/b][/color]
[right][snapback]640594[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. That's the claim that the Popes began to make all right.

Pope Gelarius I (492-496) maintained that there was a dualistic power structure in which the pope held the ultimate spiritual authority while the emperor held temporal authority.

But by the time of Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), the Pope claimed ultimate power over both spheres. Pope Boniface, who wore imperial robes, was reported to have claimed, "I am Caesar. I am emperor." He taught that the pope held both temperal and spiritual swords. He issued Unam Sanctam declaring that every human being was subject to the Pope.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Jul 12 2005, 07:09 AM']
  The more accurate analysis would be consistent with what the Church and Popes have said they are.  Princes kissing the feet of the Pope means that Earthly power or authority is indirectly derived from God so it is subordinate to the more clear and direct instances of Divine Authority on Earth, which is the Church and those in Apostolic succession.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes indeed. "What the Church and Popes have said they are." But are they? That's the real question.

It's interesting that all these claims are based on Matthew's 16: 16-19. But the preponderance of the evidence indicates that this didn't really happen as described and, in fact, may be a later copyist's addition to Matthew's Gospel.

In Matt 16:16-19 it is reported by the writer that:
(1) Simon, inspired by God, states that Jesus is the Messiah.
(2) Simon has his name changed to Peter by Jesus at this time.
(3) Jesus states that he is going to found a church.

However, Mark writing first and from whom Matthew is believed to have copied ,reported only that Peter said that Jesus was the Messiah (Mark 8:27-29). Luke reported the same thing (Luke 9:18-20) There is no mention of Peter receiving his name here, his commission, or the founding of a church.

And the Gospel of John contradicts Matthew 16 by reporting that Andrew, the brother of Simon and not God, told Simon that Jesus was the Messiah (John 1:41-42), Jesus changed his name to Peter when he first met Simon, and nothing was said about his authority, or the founding of a church.

It was often reported the Jesus believed as did many others at that time that end times were iminent, so there really wouldn't be time to found a church. Paul reports the imminence of end time also in 1 Thes 4:15. And the Acts of the Apostles does not report any church being founded, but instead that the original disciples and the apostles remained a sect of very observant Jews in Jerusalem.

And of course there is the problem of St. Peter making Evodius of Antioch his successor long before Linus at Rome.

So the historical claim for the founding of teh papacy is on a very tenuous historical basis.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 12 2005, 06:17 AM']RESPONSE:

Please note that my thread on the the contradictions in scripture because of the many writers and different time in which it was written was closed by Kilroy , since there were no rebuttals to the evidence I presented.

Simnply by comparing the different passages themselves proved the point.
[right][snapback]640587[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




Actually this is NOT ACCURATE. I closed it because it was not a valid debate. I also made note that there CLEARLY was not a winner in a debate. There was no point proven. This is a debate phorum not a grandstand forum. Simply saying the same thing over and over again doesn't not make you right by default. Nor did it make you right in that thread.

Please do not try to use the excuse "that because you were the last one posting you must be right" again.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jul 12 2005, 10:58 AM']Actually this is NOT ACCURATE.  I closed it because it was not a valid debate.  I also made note that there CLEARLY was not a winner in a debate.  There was no point proven.  This is a debate phorum not a grandstand forum.  Simply saying the same thing over and over again doesn't not make you right by default.  Nor did it make you right in that thread. 

Please do not try to use the excuse "that because you were the last one posting you must be right" again.
[right][snapback]640804[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No.I quoted various passages of scripture that were clearly contradictions, such as whether the Canaanites were defeated by Joshua before his death (Book of Joshua) or the conquest of the Canaanites began after his death (Book of Judges).

No one attempted to dispute this and the many other examples I gave. Unless someone were to admit that the Bible was in error, obviously they could not.

But those advocating the "inerrant" approach to scripture, such as Pope Leo XIII, were clearly shown to have been in error. Yet a number of very traditional Catholics still can't admit the conflicting data contained in scripture.

Repeating the same factual information does not make it any less factual.

But repeating the same error over and over again does not make it any more factual, as with the claim that the Church never taught the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery and that it had scriptural and natural law approval. (see Instruction, Holy Office, 1866)

[LittleLes]

The high point of Papal claims to universal power occurred during the reign of Pope Boniface VII who proclaimed in Unam Sanctum ( 1302)that:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

This was the last unambigious papal claim to absolute authority. After this such claims were toned down a bit.

But the notion of the absolute papal monarchy still persists and reached yet another high point - but perhaps not as high as under Boniface - during the very long reign of Pope Pius IX.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 12 2005, 08:26 AM']RESPONSE:

Not at all. A saint is suppose to be a holy man, but not all holy men become saints. As in English, there is usually a different word for each. In this case Latin was the original language in which the passage was written

Indeed, I have demonstrated that Lewis' translation was incomplete. He dropped the names of the witnesses. I wonder why?

But nice try.   Pope Gregory VII said what he said and then offered a list of others who had said the same thing.

But the larger view is that both his remarks about automatic sainthood for popes and the line about all the princes having to kiss his feet was an undisguised claim of person power.

That was the point.
[right][snapback]640590[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is completely absurd. The translation is not incomplete. I chose only to show the area where the Lewis' translation was different from the other translation. This is quite common. To then assert that you know better than well respected historians at top academic institutions suggests that all reason has left you.

It was not an undisguised claim of person power, but an undisguised claim of Church Authority vs. lay authority.

From Strayer and Gatzke "The Mainstream of Civilization, 3rd ed." pp214-215, under the heading "[b]The Problem of Secular Control[/b]";
[quote] So long as kings and lords let them restore discipline within their orders, they were quite willing to give service to the ruler and even accept his candidates as abbots.  What happened outside the monastery was the king's business, not theirs.  [b]But so long as laymen controlled the appointment of bishops and abbots, there was no hope of creating a truly Christian society outside the monasteries[/b].  At best, kings and great lords appointed good administrators who spent most of their time on secular affairs.  At worst, they sold the abbacies and bishoprics or gave them as a sort of pension to incompetent relatives.  In either case prelates appointed in this way were likely to be [b]poor spirtual leaders[/b].  Some reformers were reluctant to break entirely with the kings, who after all were semisacred personages, but as the eleventh century went on, more and more of them came to believe that the Church [b]could not accomplish its mission until it was independent of lay authority.[/b]

They also came to believe that the only way to gain independence and authority for the Church was to strengthen the [b]position of the pope[/b].  An isolated bishop or group of clergymen could not resist the pressure of secular rulers.  But if the Church were tightly organized under the pope's leadership, then the moral influence of the entire Church could be brought to bear on all the problems of European society. [/quote]
*emphasis is mine*

Sure sounds like it was a pure power grab by the pope to me.
:scratch: