Whom Do You Think To Be Pope?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1900632' date='Jun 24 2009, 12:43 PM']He was being internally consistent -- Orthodox do not hold that Peter was the first pope of Rome, but rather that Linus was. Orthodox believe that apostleship was a different sort of office. Similarly Peter and Paul weren't the first bishops of Antioch.

We know that Catholics believe Peter was the first pope.[/quote]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1900635' date='Jun 24 2009, 12:45 PM']yeah.... I think it was a shot. I know that the Orthodox hold that Linus was the first pope. It was still a shot. Not necessarly out of line on this particular thread. But one that had to be answered.[/quote]
Isn't this really just an argument of semantics?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1896851' date='Jun 20 2009, 05:20 PM']What is the point of this poll, other than making me pull out my big heavy book? [/quote]

lame. . . sorry

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1901108' date='Jun 25 2009, 01:36 AM']Isn't this really just an argument of semantics?[/quote]


If tyou mean an arguement about wether the Peter was a Pope or not. I guess that could be interpreted as semantic in nature. Having to do with the meaning of Pope.

But i don't really think it is any more than friendly banter. The statment was intended as Joke. I still think it was a pot shot. A friendly one,. but a shot and like any shot, it needed a return fire.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1901152' date='Jun 25 2009, 03:27 AM']lame. . . sorry [/quote]

I did intend for those who saw the title of the thread to be drawn in thinking it about sedevacantism. I find the Western Schism much more interesting, though.

[Don John of Austria]

And I think that people are making their decisions based on knowing who turned out to be the winner.

Now look back into the history and decide who you think you would have supported if you were not sure who was the real pope.


I'm not sure. I think there is a Good bet I would have supported John XXIII, he was a man of questiionable character, but he was tough, which is why people chose him to try and bring the Church back together.

Further, being somewhat pro Spain I might have gone with Benidict XIII ( though I doubt it, he didn't live in Rome Gregory did)

I hope I would have decerned that Gregory was indeed the ligetiment pope. But the cardinals made that mess, I think it would have been more difficult than you might think to know at that time who you should have supported.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901179' date='Jun 25 2009, 09:07 AM']I did intend for those who saw the title of the thread to be drawn in thinking it about sedevacantism. I find the Western Schism much more interesting, though.

[/quote]


what about sedevacantism where you trying to get people to think about.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901178' date='Jun 25 2009, 08:05 AM']If tyou mean an arguement about wether the Peter was a Pope or not. I guess that could be interpreted as semantic in nature. Having to do with the meaning of Pope.

But i don't really think it is any more than friendly banter. The statment was intended as Joke. I still think it was a pot shot. A friendly one,. but a shot and like any shot, it needed a return fire.[/quote]
I wasn't forming my thoughts very well when I posted that.
(I did realize it was a joke, but obviously it's a real topic of debate somewhere.)

I mean really, aren't both sides seeing it the same way, just calling it something different? At least that's how it looks to me.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1901183' date='Jun 25 2009, 08:19 AM']what about sedevacantism where you trying to get people to think about.[/quote]

Many find sedevacantism more interesting than 15th century disputes. If I had made the title "Western Schism," very few would have read it.

[The Bus Station]

Omg I can't believe this thread is still here

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901296' date='Jun 25 2009, 01:50 PM']Many find sedevacantism more interesting than 15th century disputes. If I had made the title "Western Schism," very few would have read it.[/quote]


But wouldn't a real sedevacantist say there is no pope. The See is Vacant.

Personally these guys have a much better case than the wackos who elect their own popes willy nilly.


NO I am NOT a Sedevacantist.

[kafka]

I once knew a priest who at the canon of his Latin Mass prayed for JPII on condition that he was truly the Pope, and the same priest suggested that JPII might be the False Prophet of the Book of Revelation.



um yeah.

Praise be God I'm not a messed up Rad Trad.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1901353' date='Jun 25 2009, 02:31 PM']I once knew a priest who at the canon of his Latin Mass prayed for JPII on condition that he was truly the Pope, and the same priest suggested that JPII might be the False Prophet of the Book of Revelation.



um yeah.[/quote]



[quote name='kafka' post='1901353' date='Jun 25 2009, 02:31 PM']Praise be God I'm not a messed up Rad Trad.[/quote]

Are you saying that Rad-Trads are messed up?

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1901429' date='Jun 25 2009, 05:41 PM']



Are you saying that Rad-Trads are messed up?[/quote]
lol. I knew you would pick up on that.

it depends on the particular Rad-Trad and his orientation.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1901448' date='Jun 25 2009, 04:56 PM']lol. I knew you would pick up on that.

it depends on the particular Rad-Trad and his orientation.

[/quote]

What do you say about this particular Rad-Trad?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1897468' date='Jun 21 2009, 09:13 AM']Who keeps voting for the wrong people?? [/quote]

I don't know. But it's sick