Posted on 09/02/2013 9:07:37 AM PDT by bkaycee
Pope refers to the Latin title “Pontifex Maxiumus” or great bridge builder, an ancient title of the head of the college of priests of Ancient Rome.
Pontifex Maximus is thus a pagan position, dependent on pagan authority for its precedents, and prerogatives.
Would that be like the Catholic FReepers who are claiming that she's wrong without offering any proof?
Yes, .45LG; that is funny. I will pray for you, too. :)
Yes, Correct!
When Constantine the Great convoked the famous Council of Nicaea early in the FOURTH CENTURY there was no pope and no papacy. Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Rome’s papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus – highest priest. Inasmuch as the Pontifex Maximus title is one of the many applied to Roman Catholic popes, Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time, should have had that title if he was the reigning pope. He was not the pope or a pope, and he was not even in attendance at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea
LOL
Who cares who this Collins is? Is the article factual or not? If not then in what statement? If so it doesn’t matter who said it.
Is the article factual?
Well, it’s sleazy if the “former Catholic nun” angle is a ruse, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the article’s claims about forged documents being used to support the doctrine of the papacy aren’t true. The emphasis on the status of the messenger, the classic “ad hominum” argument, is a way of avoiding the message. Maybe there are solid counter arguments to the claims made in this story, but few - if any - of the critics are telling us what they are.
As for the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine, both were indeed forgeries or --- what's worse --- mixed collections of forged and genuine manuscripts. Most of what Pseudo-Mary-Ann-Collins has to say about them is false or --- what's worse --- a mixture of tendentious and genuine interpretation.
(Pause here for all characters to change their names and reappear different costumes like a fast-paced Shakespearean farce.)
The False Decretals were evidently concocted by some Frankish monks in the 800's as an attempt to get the Carolingian Empire to back off on trying to dominate the bishops, either directly as the Empire bossing around the Church, or indirectly as imperial allies (archbishops and so forth) trying to boss around little local bishops and abbots.
In many ways an admirable project --- monks trying to defend the liberty of their local abbot --- though not, of course, by forgery.
The people through the centuries who quoted from these False Decretals (including Aquinas) were emphatically not frauds: they were just people who thought them to be genuine manuscripts, as did everybody at the time (i.e. everybody on both sides of many a disputed question.)
The person who finally did do the necessary, painstaking detective work was none other than a fifteenth century Latin scholar, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. A Catholic, you'll note. It's been a long time since anybody seriously argued that the Decretals and the Donation were genuine.
So the Pseudo-Mary-Ann runs up now to the train station, red-faced but triumphant, proclaiming that she has discovered these forged Frankish manuscripts?
That train left a couple centuries ago, Pseudo-Sister. Nice try.
I cannot speak to the nun, but you will find no one who will stand to defend these documents, and the gist of the story, the impact of these documents, is certainly true. Ergo, I doubt you will find any serious discussion on this thread, as all they will have left is poo-throwing.
This was first shown to be a forgery in the 15th century, by a "Roman" Cardinal/literary detective.
It's not something "Rome" had to be forced to "admit" by an American gal with a fake name skidding into a website almost 600 years too late.
A former nun is.....someone who quit being a nun and is no longer a nun. A nun is just a Catholic promised to virginity, wed to Christ, not a scholar. So she divorced him.
Pope is human, so not infallible - the church’s teachings are infallible and so when the pope speaks on those, there is infallibility - which is why Catholics are taught not to contracept, kill their babies or elderly, nor death penalty in 1st world countries, nor engage in sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Infallible.
“nor death penalty in 1st world countries”
Catholics are not taught the above to be infallible. Secondly, is the death penalty OK for you in 3rd world countries?
What the lead article says about the Roman church and forged documents and Papal Power is spot on. I have taken notice how everyone of the FR Catholics have responded.
Now, I know what I am going to say here is not true of all Catholics, the ones I’ve known personally, but the ones who post on the RF, not so, they appear a very dishonest lot. Which is why nothing meaningful ever comes out of any discussion with them.
Generally speaking, I don’t find this among Protestants (using the term to mean non-Catholic Christians), but then they don’t have primacy claims over the whole of Christianity to defend.
I guess, when you think about it, we shouldn’t be shocked at the dishonesty, my goodness, everything hangs on the Roman church’s claim that the Popes reign over Christianity is historically valid (the rest of Christianity - yea, the entire world - must be in subservience to the Pope). As the lead article brings out, they have used dishonest means to establish the primacy.
The institution of the Papacy is simply a lie, the fact that they use lying forged documents to establish it, proves it. And the lying tradition continues on.
FORMER Catholic nun?
LOL...
Honesty is a matter of honor which I take seriously, and, as a Catholic, personally.
All you can do is be faithful and keep on posting these excellent and informative articles. :O)
This offcourse is old news. She just happen to put a short readable article on it. That’s all.
I have the same attitude on this as i do the anti Mormon threads, that is the thread itself is not what i object to but rather some of the sleazy comments it brings from the anti Mormons.
Almost every one agrees with an anti Mormon thread and some of it gets carried away but i do not see it to that extent on an anti Catholic thread.
So i will just say i base my belief of the Gospel on what i understand of the Bible.
I do not have to take the word of some professor who has never walked the walk but only talked the talk.
The ordinary people like the fishermen brought the Gospel straight from Jesus to us, they walked the walk.
And that is good enough for me, No Mormonism, no Catholicism, no religionism period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.