Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Ok, because wikipedia makes it sound like Innocent II held a rush election involving only 6 cardinals on the night Pope Honorius II died. Anacletus II held an election and the vast majority of the cardinals elected him instead.

---

There's a lot more involved in it than that. The Family of Anacletus was essentially the mafia and had been trying to brute force a person into the Papacy for years through outright bribery and mercenary threat.

The small number of bishops that elected Innocent II first were Cardinal-Bishops who were in charge of papal elections. They did indeed hold a rush election, because they feared that if they didn't the future anti-Pope Anacletus would be elected.

They had a legitimate election, first, led by the Papal Chancellor and the College of Cardinal-Bishops, and Pope Innocent II became rightful Pope.

End justifies the means I guess.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

End justifies the means I guess.

---

The end does indeed justifies the means provided the means aren't immoral. That's the part everyone forgets about the principle of double effect.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

The Catholic Church was created by Jesus in 33 AD..."Upon this Rock (Peter), I will build MY Church."

---

Only one Universal/Catholic Church.

The "Roman Catholic Church" as we know it today is not the same thing to me as the Church in the 4th century.

Peter and Paul were not from Rome, the city or even the West. Peter was not Roman.

Peter founded the Church in Antioch and served as its first Bishop. Close to a decade in Antioch and almost all of his life in the East.

Peter spent maybe as little as a few years total in Rome before his martyrdom.

Paul did not mention him in his greetings in Romans.

In fact the Bible does not explicitly even state his presence there or as a" founder " of the Church. Certainly not the founder as it existed before he arrived as Paul did not mention him.

Peter or Paul would not have accepted the concept of The Roman Bishop separating itself from the rest of the Church.

I'm not Roman Catholic. Maybe you are and that origin story it's important to you.

Peter was a first amongst equals. Certainly don't believe "The Pope" holds exclusive rights to that title. In fact it's dubious to me.

---

Ok, but there still was a Roman Catholic Church, which See was Peter Bishop of when he was killed? You can't gloss over 1000 years of history and pretend it didn't exist.

---

There was not a Roman Catholic Church. There was the Catholic (Universal) Church that Peter and Paul and all Antioch and Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome were all part of.

Peter was considered a first among equals.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until it separated itself from the other Churches.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a valid Church but no more so than any other Orthodox Church.

My church of Christ cousins likes to point that they are the only denomination mentioned by name in the bible, thus the true church

"The churches of Christ salute you" Romans 16:16

Top that!

Acts 9:31 describes the state of the early Church after a period of persecution. It states that the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace, was strengthened, and grew in number while walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit. The phrase "katholes" (in Greek), often translated as "throughout all" or "universal," is used in this verse, which has led to interpretations connecting it to the concept of a universal or Catholic Church

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

If the pope was elected in that way today with a majority of the cardinals missing, you know there would be uproar. Don't lie.

And my quote of Bernard was not meant to say who was or wasn't the true pope. Only to show Bernard thought the beast was a man in his day (not a future person) and that he sat on Peter's seat (not Pagan Rome).

---

Of course there would be an uproar because it would be completely different with how we do things now, it was not different and was actually prescribed 1000 years ago; when people didn't have instant communication or travel.

It is extremely clear you're trying to make the beast be the Roman Catholic Church. That was obviously the connotation with your first post. When your "revelation says the 7 hills is rome" I showed that it was referring to pagan rome, and the antichrist emperors. Then you pivoted to a quote from a Catholic Saint, to again show that he was referring to the Catholic Church, when he was actually referring to an usurper.