Vasilius Konstantinos Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1900486' date='Jun 24 2009, 04:15 AM'][/quote] Perplexed?
Don John of Austria Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 [quote name='Vasilius Konstantinos' post='1900457' date='Jun 24 2009, 02:23 AM']I thought about this for a bit and I came to the conclusion that if the Magisterium and Cardinals worldwide are not in error than Pope John XXIII is a legitimate Pope, seated upon the thrown of St. Peter and ruling in his might as all the Popes before him all the way to the first Pope, Linus.[/quote] Differant John XXIII.
Don John of Austria Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 [quote name='Vasilius Konstantinos' post='1900457' date='Jun 24 2009, 02:23 AM']I thought about this for a bit and I came to the conclusion that if the Magisterium and Cardinals worldwide are not in error than Pope John XXIII is a legitimate Pope, seated upon the thrown of St. Peter and ruling in his might as all the Popes before him all the way to the first Pope, Peter.[/quote] Oh and i saw what you did there. Fixed it for you.
Patrick Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 [quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1900626' date='Jun 24 2009, 11:33 AM']Oh and i saw what you did there. Fixed it for you.[/quote] 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.
Don John of Austria Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 [quote name='Patrick' post='1900632' date='Jun 24 2009, 01:43 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] 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.
Vasilius Konstantinos Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 LOL It was a joke to be honest, not a pot shot. I do believe Peter to be Pope of Rome but I also hold that Linus was assigned the position as the unofficial first Pope of Rome, apostolic Authority through Sts. Peter and Paul who were Missionaries to Rome to establish the Church. The place where Peter spent time to actually have a Bishopric to oversee was Antioch, though this is more opinion than evidence to show.
T-Bone _ Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1897502' date='Jun 21 2009, 09:58 AM']Those who did not bother to type "Western Schism" into their search engine probably voted for the wrong men.[/quote] Perhaps those who did not care to do so?
Nihil Obstat Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 [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 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 [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 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 [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 Posted June 25, 2009 Author Posted June 25, 2009 [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 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 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 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 [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 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 [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 Posted June 25, 2009 Author Posted June 25, 2009 [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 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Omg I can't believe this thread is still here
Don John of Austria Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 [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.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now