Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-06-2013, 09:43 PM

Interesting article in the Irish Times - interesting that it is in the Irish Times at this point in history.

Papal authority is founded on fanciful claim of succession

Quote:

...

Then there is the fairly stunning evidence that at the moment on which arguably by far the most significant decision in the history of the Catholic Church was taken, the pope was nowhere to be seen. This was at the Council of Nicaea, which was summoned not by any bishop but by the then Roman emperor, Constantine, to adjudicate on competing claims concerning the divinity of Jesus. The council decided Jesus, the son of God, was co-eternal with the father and begotten from the father. It was the basis for what we know now as the Nicene creed.

Yes there is a catalogue of important fathers of the church who subsequently took a different line on the primacy of Peter, but there is no escape from the reality that the great theologian of Christianity, Paul, had scant regard for the status of Peter, and that no one else in the early days of Christianity seemed to have regarded Peter as the gaffer. Certainly from what we know of the Council of Jerusalem, that was so. And, anyway, the great apostle of Jesus turned out to have been someone who had never met him: Paul, not Peter.

...

Nevertheless, in the next few weeks, amid great and splendid ceremony, 115 elderly men in scarlet robes will decide who should succeed to the primacy of Peter, a primacy Peter probably never possessed, on the basis of a bishopric succession from Peter, a bishopric which may never have existed in the first place. And the elected one will be endowed with a status and authority not known since the fall of empires.

aa5874 · 03-06-2013, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting article in the Irish Times - interesting that it is in the Irish Times at this point in history.

Papal authority is founded on fanciful claim of succession

Quote:

...

Then there is the fairly stunning evidence that at the moment on which arguably by far the most significant decision in the history of the Catholic Church was taken, the pope was nowhere to be seen. This was at the Council of Nicaea, which was summoned not by any bishop but by the then Roman emperor, Constantine, to adjudicate on competing claims concerning the divinity of Jesus. The council decided Jesus, the son of God, was co-eternal with the father and begotten from the father. It was the basis for what we know now as the Nicene creed.

Yes there is a catalogue of important fathers of the church who subsequently took a different line on the primacy of Peter, but there is no escape from the reality that the great theologian of Christianity, Paul, had scant regard for the status of Peter, and that no one else in the early days of Christianity seemed to have regarded Peter as the gaffer. Certainly from what we know of the Council of Jerusalem, that was so. And, anyway, the great apostle of Jesus turned out to have been someone who had never met him: Paul, not Peter.

...

Nevertheless, in the next few weeks, amid great and splendid ceremony, 115 elderly men in scarlet robes will decide who should succeed to the primacy of Peter, a primacy Peter probably never possessed, on the basis of a bishopric succession from Peter, a bishopric which may never have existed in the first place. And the elected one will be endowed with a status and authority not known since the fall of empires.

Again, we have the Bible being used to corroborate itself. It is well known that the Bible is a compilation of Myth Fables yet people here still use it for the history of Paul and Peter.

This is completely unacceptable.

The Bible is historically bogus.

It is already known that the Entire Canon does NOT contain any real history of the Jesus cult and Paul.

The Jesus cult characters are Fakes including the character called Peter the Bishop of Rome.

maryhelena · 03-07-2013, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting article in the Irish Times - interesting that it is in the Irish Times at this point in history.

Papal authority is founded on fanciful claim of succession

Quote:

...

Then there is the fairly stunning evidence that at the moment on which arguably by far the most significant decision in the history of the Catholic Church was taken, the pope was nowhere to be seen. This was at the Council of Nicaea, which was summoned not by any bishop but by the then Roman emperor, Constantine, to adjudicate on competing claims concerning the divinity of Jesus. The council decided Jesus, the son of God, was co-eternal with the father and begotten from the father. It was the basis for what we know now as the Nicene creed.

Yes there is a catalogue of important fathers of the church who subsequently took a different line on the primacy of Peter, but there is no escape from the reality that the great theologian of Christianity, Paul, had scant regard for the status of Peter, and that no one else in the early days of Christianity seemed to have regarded Peter as the gaffer. Certainly from what we know of the Council of Jerusalem, that was so. And, anyway, the great apostle of Jesus turned out to have been someone who had never met him: Paul, not Peter.

...

Nevertheless, in the next few weeks, amid great and splendid ceremony, 115 elderly men in scarlet robes will decide who should succeed to the primacy of Peter, a primacy Peter probably never possessed, on the basis of a bishopric succession from Peter, a bishopric which may never have existed in the first place. And the elected one will be endowed with a status and authority not known since the fall of empires.

All very interesting - the Irish awakening from their slumber at long last....

Quote:

I confess that I do not see what good it does to fulminate against the English tyranny while the Roman tyranny occupies the palace of the soul.

James Joyce (1882-1941), Irish author. "Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages," lecture, 27 April 1907, Università Popolare Triestina (published in Critical Writings, sct. 35, ed. by Ellsworth Mason and Richard Ellmann, 1959).

Iskander · 03-07-2013, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting article in the Irish Times - interesting that it is in the Irish Times at this point in history.

Papal authority is founded on fanciful claim of succession

All very interesting - the Irish awakening from their slumber at long last....

Quote:

I confess that I do not see what good it does to fulminate against the English tyranny while the Roman tyranny occupies the palace of the soul.

James Joyce (1882-1941), Irish author. "Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages," lecture, 27 April 1907, Università Popolare Triestina (published in Critical Writings, sct. 35, ed. by Ellsworth Mason and Richard Ellmann, 1959).

More than 160 leading Catholic scholars worldwide have signed a “Declaration on authority in the Catholic Church” that calls for change in church governance

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...330204418.html

Chili · 03-07-2013, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting article in the Irish Times - interesting that it is in the Irish Times at this point in history.

Papal authority is founded on fanciful claim of succession

All very interesting - the Irish awakening from their slumber at long last....

Quote:

I confess that I do not see what good it does to fulminate against the English tyranny while the Roman tyranny occupies the palace of the soul.

James Joyce (1882-1941), Irish author. "Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages," lecture, 27 April 1907, Università Popolare Triestina (published in Critical Writings, sct. 35, ed. by Ellsworth Mason and Richard Ellmann, 1959).

More than 160 leading Catholic scholars worldwide have signed a “Declaration on authority in the Catholic Church” that calls for change in church governance

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...330204418.html

Those sages were all Catholic which had baffled Oxford ever since and those schoolboys just do not have a clue.

maryhelena · 03-07-2013, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting article in the Irish Times - interesting that it is in the Irish Times at this point in history.

Papal authority is founded on fanciful claim of succession

All very interesting - the Irish awakening from their slumber at long last....

Quote:

I confess that I do not see what good it does to fulminate against the English tyranny while the Roman tyranny occupies the palace of the soul.

James Joyce (1882-1941), Irish author. "Ireland, Island of Saints and Sages," lecture, 27 April 1907, Università Popolare Triestina (published in Critical Writings, sct. 35, ed. by Ellsworth Mason and Richard Ellmann, 1959).

More than 160 leading Catholic scholars worldwide have signed a “Declaration on authority in the Catholic Church” that calls for change in church governance

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...330204418.html

I see that Hans Kung has signed this....

He recently wrote an article for the New York Times.

A Vatican Spring?

Quote:

If the next conclave were to elect a pope who goes down the same old road, the church will never experience a new spring, but fall into a new ice age and run the danger of shrinking into an increasingly irrelevant sect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/op...nted=all&_r=2&

A Vatican Spring? Hans Kung: The True Papabile

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-True-Papabile

Chili · 03-07-2013, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

A Vatican Spring? Hans Kung: The True Papabile

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-True-Papabile

I think Hans Kung better get drunk to get some shine in his life for the truth that he sees is far removed from the truth that they maintain, and will stand on until the [very] bitter end when only a small remnant will remain.

The real problem is that we all regret the waning of our better days while not realizing that Reform is the cause of it, nor do we realize that what goes up must come down and actually crash at large, in the same way they proclaim and maintain that the individual must crash in the particular, and is whereupon this Church is built = saints in heaven to show their worth.

And the Reformation promised this wherein only half baked self proclaimed Christians are in charge that started our decline as a new civilization that could go no-where but downhill from their social high.

And notice that Russia did this different. They introduced Communism as a cooling down period and now are back again in their 'silver age' to become the next shiner again.

And let's not forget that Putim himself send those girls to jail for sacrilege, that only made a statement, world-wide to note. Of course they will get a pardon soon (or did already), but it was the statement that he made what really counts.

Duvduv · 03-07-2013, 08:52 AM

I am surprised it isn't pointed out that the religion emanating from the Vatican since 1965 should be described as Neo-Roman Catholicism since in terms of its doctrines and beliefs it is not the same religion as before.

Toto · 03-07-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am surprised it isn't pointed out that the religion emanating from the Vatican since 1965 should be described as Neo-Roman Catholicism since in terms of its doctrines and beliefs it is not the same religion as before.

In what way? Did the dump the Nicene creed?

It's more like you can't step in the same stream twice.

When has the Christian religion or the Catholic Church ever been exactly the same from one era to another?

Chili · 03-07-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am surprised it isn't pointed out that the religion emanating from the Vatican since 1965 should be described as Neo-Roman Catholicism since in terms of its doctrines and beliefs it is not the same religion as before.

Good point. Vatican II is different that to some extent made it protestant to enable ecumenism, I think they called it, and is where Lefebvre isolated himself and his followers as the Traditional Catholics. Not a chism but a point of disagreement that denied the purpose of the Latin Mass, for example, that was Latin to help conceal the mystery of faith, as they see it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2013, 08:52 AM	#8
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I am surprised it isn't pointed out that the religion emanating from the Vatican since 1965 should be described as Neo-Roman Catholicism since in terms of its doctrines and beliefs it is not the same religion as before.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.