End justifies the means I guess.

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.

The beast is pagan Rome...his hoar is Israel/Jerusalem...The hoar was burned up by the beast in 70 AD...

Quote:

---

When your "revelation says the 7 hills is rome" I showed that it was referring to pagan rome

---

Bernard said it was the person on Peter's seat in 1131AD, not Pagan Rome.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Can you clarify this? You said it was different, but not different.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

When your "revelation says the 7 hills is rome" I showed that it was referring to pagan rome

---

Bernard said it was the person on Peter's seat in 1131AD, not Pagan Rome.

---

Yes I understand that, you pivoted to St.Bernard after your initial post was shown to be inaccurate.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

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.

---

In this context, Roman Catholic Church = Catholic Church in Rome. Like there would have been and Alexandrian Catholic Church, a Jerusalemite Catholic Church, etc. It's just an issue of grammar.

"Roman Catholic" was a slur popularized in England during the reformation to illustrate the refusal to acknowledge papal authority. And it was effective because the "Catholic Church in Rome" sounds like it's referencing THE Church's Roman locations vs the "Roman Catholic Church' which sounds like A Church HQ'd in Rome. I think the modern Church would benefit from using the former, but the latter flows much easier

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Can you clarify this? You said it was different, but not different.

---

Yes; it was not different with how they did things back then. They did not have instant communication back then, they did not have swift travel back then, many times a Pope would be elected without 90% of christendom knowing about it for months or years.

Back then, you needed the Cardinal Bishops and the Papal Chancellor in order to have a legitimate election; as per the rule of Pope Nicholas II years before. That is no longer the case now; which is why it would seem different today; but was normal at that time.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

When your "revelation says the 7 hills is rome" I showed that it was referring to pagan rome

---

Bernard said it was the person on Peter's seat in 1131AD, not Pagan Rome.

---

Yes I understand that, you pivoted to St.Bernard after your initial post was shown to be inaccurate.

---

All I said in the OP is that it's clearly "Rome". You agreed but qualified with "Pagan" which Bernard disagrees with. Not sure what I showed was inaccurate.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Can you clarify this? You said it was different, but not different.

---

Yes; it was not different with how they did things back then. They did not have instant communication back then, they did not have swift travel back then, many times a Pope would be elected without 90% of christendom knowing about it for months or years.

Back then, you needed the Cardinal Bishops and the Papal Chancellor in order to have a legitimate election; as per the rule of Pope Nicholas II years before. That is no longer the case now; which is why it would seem different today; but was normal at that time.

---

First rule:
1. That, when the pontiff of this Roman universal church dies, the cardinal bishops, after first conferring together with most diligent consideration, shall afterwards call in to themselves the cardinal clergy; and then the remaining clergy and the people shall approach and consent to the new election.

This is not how Innocent II was elected. He was elected overnight by 6 cardinals.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Can you clarify this? You said it was different, but not different.

---

Yes; it was not different with how they did things back then. They did not have instant communication back then, they did not have swift travel back then, many times a Pope would be elected without 90% of christendom knowing about it for months or years.

Back then, you needed the Cardinal Bishops and the Papal Chancellor in order to have a legitimate election; as per the rule of Pope Nicholas II years before. That is no longer the case now; which is why it would seem different today; but was normal at that time.

---

First rule:
1. That, when the pontiff of this Roman universal church dies, the cardinal bishops, after first conferring together with most diligent consideration, shall afterwards call in to themselves the cardinal clergy; and then the remaining clergy and the people shall approach and consent to the new election.

This is not how Innocent II was elected. He was elected overnight by 6 cardinals.

---

4 of whom were Cardinal Bishops; they have the authority to decide how many cardinals need to be in attendance to elect the Pope.

That the Rome referred to in Revelation is not "Pagan Rome." You can change it to "usurper of Peter's seat" if you want, but Bernard definitely does not identify it with "Pagan Rome."

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Can you clarify this? You said it was different, but not different.

---

Yes; it was not different with how they did things back then. They did not have instant communication back then, they did not have swift travel back then, many times a Pope would be elected without 90% of christendom knowing about it for months or years.

Back then, you needed the Cardinal Bishops and the Papal Chancellor in order to have a legitimate election; as per the rule of Pope Nicholas II years before. That is no longer the case now; which is why it would seem different today; but was normal at that time.

---

First rule:
1. That, when the pontiff of this Roman universal church dies, the cardinal bishops, after first conferring together with most diligent consideration, shall afterwards call in to themselves the cardinal clergy; and then the remaining clergy and the people shall approach and consent to the new election.

This is not how Innocent II was elected. He was elected overnight by 6 cardinals.

---

4 of whom were Cardinal Bishops; they have the authority to decide how many cardinals need to be in attendance to elect the Pope.

---

You're saying that first rule was followed in the election of Innocent II? I mean I get your whole worldview hangs on that, but you can say that with a straight face?

Quote:

---

First rule:
1. That, when the pontiff of this Roman universal church dies, the cardinal bishops, after first conferring together with most diligent consideration, shall afterwards call in to themselves the cardinal clergy; and then the remaining clergy and the people shall approach and consent to the new election.

---

This is actually very important and the three steps should be broken out:

Step 1 - Cardinal Bishops confer: Two sets of cardinal bishops conferred. While one group was larger than the other, the important fact is that they did not confer as one group. So to step 2

Step 2- Cardinal Clergy: Much of the clergy (but not all) in Rome agreed with the election, but outside of Rome, very few, if any agreed. This may have been a case of how slowly news spread, but it clearly wasn't an agreed conclusion.

Step 3- Remaining Clergy and Laity: Basically zero acceptance of any kind. Bernard's letter was written to show just how much opposition there was.

Conclusion: Rule #1 was "broken"

Note the difference between this and say the EO schism, where the pope was clearly the bishop of Rome without question. The eastern churches, right or wrong, simply thought he entered into heresy. But he was still pope. Anacletus was never widely accepted as pope.