Catholic Claims

[Montalban]

I thought I'd introduce a long tract I've been slowly building up on false Catholic claims to supremecy of Rome. This is for all Orthodox here who might use this information to make educated discussion. I apologise for the length, and if it seems badly pieced together.

On this Rock
A Roman claim for Papal power typically states that Peter is the ‘rock’ on which the church was established. A survey of early church fathers commentaries[i] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognise ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of Catholic commission therefore is not so clear. St. Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3)[ii]
St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5) [iii]
Turning again to St. Augustine “Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the
Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.
“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that
Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25) [iv]
Further, the power of binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles (Mat 18:18). Thus to turn to St. Augustine once more… “He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul). [v]
We can see how the Apostles viewed each other in the book of Acts. Acts 15:2 'This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.' That a) they were in dispute, and b) they sought the elders, not Peter alone.
When we look at the first council, that of Jerusalem (Acts 15) it was presided over by James, who also rendered the final judgment, even as
Peter was present. (see also Appendix B) ”When they finished, St. James spoke up: ”It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
Eusebius wrote of this in his church history (note he also quotes Clement – a supposed Papal prince). “This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church.
Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: “Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the
Saviour had especially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”[vi]
Look at Acts 15:22 “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers” That is, the council in session decided, not a pontiff, Peter.
Thus, St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
(Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics). [vii]
The First Pope?
The claim too of Peter’s succession falls down in light of the fact that he founded many churches, not just Rome. My own church is Antiochian, a
See established by Peter before he went to Rome. Yet this church was lower than Alexandria founded by St. Mark. Why is it that a church founded by the ‘primary Apostle’ be accorded lower honour than that of St. Mark? Rome became first in honour because it was the political centre of the Roman world. Thus it was because of politics, not spirituality that saw Rome’s place established.
In fact, St. Peter is not seen as the sole founder of Rome’s Christian church, nor is he seen as its first bishop! Irenaeus wrote "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."[viii]
Further he states that St. Peter and St. Paul founded the chuch… "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."[ix] That is, Linus is the first Bishop, NOT St. Peter If you read on, he counts St. Clement as third from Linus (not St. Peter)... "Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."[x]
That St. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome is because his role was that of an Apostle – that is, to travel about establishing Christian communities. St. James was not an Apostle, seemingly having resigned from that when he became bishop of Jerusalem (see Appendix B regarding his role in the church council there).
[b]Pope St. Victor – First signs of Supremecy?
Other claims by the Catholic church on the ‘exercise’ of papal power fail upon closer inspection. Pope St. Victor (189-199) is sometimes claimed by Catholics as the first to demonstrate supreme power over the whole Christian world.
The Church in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from the rest of the Christian churches, and although he initiated a synod to investigate, this was done by request, not command. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus wrote to St. Victor “Victor and the Roman
Church”, (Eusebius – v. 24). [xi]
Eusebius further says “There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus was archbishop, and from the bishops in Osrhoene and the cities of that region. There are personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule the rule already stated.” [xii]
Thus the decree came from the conference, not from the Pope. Polycrates disputed the council, however. Eusebius said
“Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian diocese, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.” [xiii] NOTE: Attempted He failed because “…this was not tot the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was responsible for in Gaul.”[xiv] This hardly suggest universal over-lordship as understood by the early church.
[i] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27. On the issue of ‘the Rock’ and ‘the Keys’ we can look to other great thinkers… (see also Appendix A) to determine how they interpreted these words.

[ii] Ibid, pp27-8.

[iii] Ibid, p28. Note that St. Cyprian re-occurs a number of times as one of the so-called ‘champions’ of Papal Primacy – we shall visit him again as well.

[iv] Ibid, pp31-32.

[v] Ibid, p-33.

[vi] “The History of the Church” – II.I quoted in Ibid, pp38-9.

[vii] Whelton, p34.

[viii] Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)

[ix] Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.3.2-3 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)

[x] Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.3.3 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)

[xi] Whelton, p45.

[xii] Ibid, p45.

[xiii] Ibid, pp46-47.

Note that the Catholic Church regards Eusebius as the "Father of Church History" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm)

[xiv] Whelton, Ibid.

[Montalban]

The Early Church
The independence of the churches was confirmed in church law. (see also Appendix F for what it really means by the term ‘Catholic Church’). Canon 6 of the First Council of Nicea “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.”[xv] (see Appendix C)
St. Cyprian said in the opening address of the Council of Cathage…“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.”[xvi]
Ignatius of Antioch thus addresses a letter to the Romans as a church in charge of local affairs. He begins his Epistle “…to the Church that is in
charge of affairs in Roman quarters.”[xvii]
(Note he doesn’t say ”To the church that is in charge everywhere throughout the Christian world.”)
To understand if the church understood the Papacy, as Catholics now claim, we need only look at the Ecumenical Councils... All were called by the Emperor, not the Pope. The Second Ecumenical Council was called without the knowledge of the Pope, and the Fourth and Firth Ecumenical Councils were called against his
express wishes.
Catholics make much use of the words of these councils. One of the main Catholic 'evidences' comes from the belief that Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria acted as the Pope's (Celestine) servant, in the Nestorian debates. Pope Pius XI claimed that the 3rd Ecumenical Council established papal supremacy.
”But Cyril said... "Peter and John were both Apostles and saints and adorned with equal honours and powers"
(P G Migne, 76:65).[xviii]
In fact, specifically in this debate, Pope Celestine held a synod in Rome
in which he condemned Nestorius. He then wrote to Cyril informing him of
this decision. Importantly, Cyril convened a council in Alexandria to discuss the issues raised in the Pope's letter, and they too condemned Nestorius. This is
important, because even though the Pope had ruled on this, and had informed Cyril, Cyril did not just 'obey', but instead called a council of those in his own See. This was because as Cyril understood it, he was the boss of his own area. What was ruled in Rome did not affect him.
Romans continue to re-write Council teachings
(See also Appendix D)
“Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431) The Council of Ephesus, of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation
of Pelagius.”[xix]
This lie stems from Pius XI's declaration (in Lux Veritatis) that Cyril,
Patriarch of Alexandria was a papal legate. Pope Celestine never refers to Patriarch Cyril as legate in correspondence to the Council, and only describes Arcadius, Projetus, and Philip as those who "filled the place of the Apostolic See".[xx]
The fact that the Pope sent these legates at all shows that Cyril did not represent
him, or else the Pope would not have sent them as his representatives. Three months before the Council had been called, Pope Celestine had issued
an excommunication on Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council,
however, ignored this and treated Nestorius as the proper Patriarch of
Constantinople. The council then proceeded to examine the evidence and
pronounced its own sentence: "The holy Synod...to Nestorius the new Judas:
Know that for thy impious doctrines thou was deposed by the holy Synod
agreeably to the laws of the Church."
(Mansi -IV, 1227).[xxi]
That is, they ignored the excommunication of Celestine and judged him for
themselves. Pope Pius XI tried to put a spin on this saying that they
merely ratified Celestine's sentence. This is not so, as shown Nestorius
was accepted with honour, until the sentence was passed. The Emperor
himself had invited Nestorius "...In November the emperor, not regarding
the papal condemnation as definitive, had already convoked a general
council..."
(Leo Donald Davis (a Jesuit) "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology", Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1990, p153).[xxii]
Further, Roman Catholic historian Bishop Maret says "The Pope pronounced
in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the
authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, however, three
months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is
invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute..."
(Du Concile generale et de la paix religieuse - vol1, page 183, Bishop
Henri Maret Paris, 1869). [xxiii]
False Roman claims abound. Some are quite clearly placed as attempts at distorting the truth.
[xv] Whelton, p44.
[xvi] Ibid, p34
[xvii] Ibid pp43-44. (also at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html)
[xviii] Ibid, p55.
[xix] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
[xx] Mansi - VI, 1337 quoted in Whelton, p61
[xxi] Ibid, pp57-8
[xxii] Eusebius – v. 25 quoted in Ibid, p59.
[xxiii] Ibid, p60

[Montalban]

The false Catholic claim is worth repeating…
“In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).”[xxiv]
This is just simply not true. Looking at the verses just preceding it,
Luke 22
24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.
25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.
26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.
27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials.
29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[xxv]
We can see that Jesus had an opportunity to name Peter as the leader, and he does the very opposite. He says that they all should be equal. He speaks to them all when he says that they are to be appointed to the Kingdom. THEN he turns to speak to Simon Peter to tell him that he will betray Him.
St. Jerome
What did other people understand the ‘rock’ to mean? “Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named.
(6th Book on Matthew)[xxvi]
Origen
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,"71 hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"?72 Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"73 be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,"74 etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"75 etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord"76 they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."77 And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,78 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom.79 And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs,80 cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock,81 is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.”[xxvii]
[xxiv] http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp
[xxv] http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=luke+22&version=NIV
[xxvi] Whelton, p32.
[xxvii] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm

[Montalban]

APPENDIX B – The Council of Jerusalem as shown by the Book of Acts
There are a few important things to note about this council. St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, therefore the meeting was held in his See, and thus he presided, not Peter, because Jerusalem was then the most important Christian centre.
Some Roman Catholics claim that when St. Peter spoke, all were silent. When someone spoke, whomever it was, no one else spoke over them. That's called politeness
Thus...
"When they finished, St. James spoke up:..."
That is, St. James waited his turn.
Earlier...
Acts 15:12
"The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and St. Paul
telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the
Gentiles through them. "
They too had the floor, and everyone was silent.
c) MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL James clearly made the decision
Acts 15:19
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for
the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Note also...
Acts 15:23
"With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your
brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and
disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
25
So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear
friends Barnabas and Paul-- 26 men who have risked their lives for the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ
That is, 'we' decided this, 'we' voted on this. Not "Peter" decided this.
Thus
"But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing
imperiously."
St. John Chrysotomon, Homily III on Acts 1:12[xxviii]
APPENDIX C – The Councils
THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (Nicea)
States in canon 6.
“The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.”[xxix]
This can and has been misinterpreted by some Catholics, however the matter is made more clear in the following…
THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
(THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE)
CANON II states
“THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.”[xxx]
[xxviii] Whelton, p33.
[xxix] http://members.aol.com/DSeraphim/1.html
[xxx] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/3Const1/Canon2.htm

[Montalban]

APPENDIX D – Further misrepresentations and mistakes on Roman Catholic
web-sites.
A number of Roman Catholic web-sites present numerous quotes supposedly supporting Papal power…
Here is a typical Roman misrepresentation
“The Authority of the Pope: Part II: Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).”[xxxi]
Yet look how the proceedings are actually spelled out…
“The holy and ecumenical Synod, gathered together in Ephesus by the decree of our most religious Emperors, to the bishops, presbyters, deacons, and all the people in every province and city:
When we had assembled, according to the religious decree [of the Emperors]…”[xxxii]
That is, the council was convened at order of the Emperor. It was held in the east, and the Pope didn’t attend. In fact, because he didn’t attend, and courtesy required that he be informed, a letter was sent to him…[xxxiii]
How is it written? It begins “The Holy Synod which by the grace of God was assembled at Ephesus the Metropolis to the most holy and our fellow-minister Coelestine, health in the Lord.” That is, it politely accords great respect to a great bishop, but not to a Papal Prince. In fact, even a person who is a heretic, is accorded title “…The most reverend John bishop of Antioch…”
And in dealing with heretics, it calls upon the Pope not to act with princely authority, but to keep them in mind, to pray for them.
It also says “…and in accordance with the orders of the most pious and Christ-loving Emperors, we assembled together…”, confirming that the council was brought about at the behest of the Emperor, not the Pope.
Ironically, this council’s decrees which are supposed to back up Papal claims had issued a decree stating that the Creed of Nicea should never be changed… something Catholics would later do.[xxxiv]
Note it gives no scope for a Papal decision to change the Creed. It states ‘no bishop’.
One of the most blatant re-workings of the truth can be found on a Catholic web-site which quotes…
“"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter"[xxxv]
The actual text says… “17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity.”[xxxvi]
That is, Cyprian is critical of the Bishop of Rome for unilaterally adding to teachings. A most interesting footnote appears to this text…
“[This place and succession are conceded in the argument; but Stephen himself does not appear to have claimed to be the Rock or to exercise the authority of Peter. Vol. iii. p. 266 ]”[xxxvii]
Another Catholic claim centres around the Council of Chalcedon
"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]). [xxxviii]
How is this possible? Canon XXVIII shows up claims for papal power…
“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (<greek>isa</greek> <greek>presbeia</greek>) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.” [xxxix]
That is, a council decided what honours should be attained by a particular bishopric, and they decided Constantinople, which was then as important a city as Rome, should receive THE SAME HONOURS as Rome.

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’"[xl]
This same Leo, it must be remembered, begged the Emperor to have the council meet in Italy, but the Emperor ignored him…
“And because this mystery is now being impiously opposed by a few ignorant persons, all the churches of our parts, and all the priests entreat your clemency, with groans and tears seeing that our delegates faithfully protested, and bishop Flavian gave them an appeal in writing, to order a general synod to be held in Italy, which shall either dismiss or appease all disputes in such a way that there be nothing any longer either doubtful in the Faith or divided in love, and to it, of course, the bishops of the Eastern provinces must come, and if any of them were overcome by threats and injury, and deviated from the path of truth, they may be fully restored by health-giving measures, and they themselves, whose case is harder, if they acquiesce in wiser counsels, may not fall from the unity of the Church.[xli]
But what about the actual text as put forward by the Catholics? Well let’s look at the text and how it reads in context “After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo’s), the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”[xlii]
That is, they welcome the teachings of Leo, because they are the truth, as are the teachings of Cyril. They are not saying ‘these are the teachings of our leader’, otherwise they wouldn’t have put Cyril on the same footing as Leo.
Ironically, in light of the history of Papal parsimony, canon II states… “IF any Bishop should ordain for money, and put to sale a grace which cannot be sold, and for money ordain a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyters, or deacons, or any other of those who are counted among the clergy; or if through lust of gain he should nominate for money a steward, or advocate, or prosmonarius, or any one whatever who is on the roll of the Church, let him who is convicted of this forfeit his own rank; and let him who is ordained be nothing profited by the purchased ordination or promotion; but let him be removed from the dignity or charge he has obtained for money. And if any one should be found negotiating such shameful and unlawful transactions, let him also, if he is a clergyman, be deposed from his rank, and if he is a layman or monk, let him be anathematized.”[xliii]
One man who converted from Protestantism to Catholicism claimed that there is ample evidence of the early church fathers supporting Papal supremecy.[xliv]
He states with convictions…
“Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200, and continuing to challenge the heretics who have departed from the doctrine of the Church says, "Come now,...run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place...Achaia...Corinth...Philippi...Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [John the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffered no hurt, was exiled to an island"[36,1-3]. (p.122).” (emphasis his)
Oddly enough he fails to understand that he highlights the part that doesn’t support his argument. If you are near to Italy, Rome is your head church… that is to say, only if you are near Italy. But what about ‘whence also our authority derives’?
Let’s just take a moment to look at Tertullian, is he a whole-hearted supporter of the Papacy?

[Michael the Iconographer]

After a brief reading of this, it is very well written in your documentation of the fact that the Pope has no grounds for his claims to Universal Sovereignty.

[Montalban]

my apologies for having to split this one
A Catholic web-site[xlv] states…
“Tertullian
(QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS).
Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 at Carthage, being the son of a centurion in the proconsular service. He was evidently by profession an advocate in the law-courts, and he shows a close acquaintance with the procedure and terms of Roman law, though it is doubtful whether he is to be identified with a jurist Tertullian who is cited in the Pandects. He knew Greek as well as Latin, and wrote works in Greek which have not come down to us. A pagan until middle life, he had shared the pagan prejudices against Christianity, and had indulged like others in shameful pleasures. His conversion was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier. He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became a priest, no doubt of the Church of Carthage. Monceaux, followed by d'Ales, considers that his earlier writings were composed while he was yet a layman, and if this be so, then his ordination was about 200. His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218).”
Note two things. 1) he is from North Africa; close to Italy – therefore his church then probably did come under the headship of Rome. 2) He was known to be critical of bishops of Rome.
This misguided writer goes on. Another of his so-called proofs is the opening address of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, which reads;
“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father's name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness.”[xlvi]
Again note… ‘to the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans’, that is, to the area around Rome! Note also ‘to the church that is beloved…’ not ‘to the church that is MOST beloved…’
The quote by Irenaeus of Lyons has this interesting footnote…
The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam." Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original "potiorem principalitatem" may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: "For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles." (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth's St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.[xlvii]
“4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,7 departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.8 There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? ""I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."9 There is also a very powerful10 Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”[xlviii]
That is, Polycarp, of Asia, also holds Apostolic authority, and his church too bears witness to Christianity.
[xxi] Ibid, pp57-8
[xxii] Eusebius – v. 25 quoted in Ibid, p59.
[xxiii] Ibid, p60
[xxiv] http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp
[xxv] http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=luke+22&version=NIV
[xxvi] Whelton, p32.
[xxvii] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm
[xxviii] Whelton, p33.
[xxix] http://members.aol.com/DSeraphim/1.html
[xxx] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/3Const1/Canon2.htm
[xxxi] http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
[xxxii] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4Ephesus/Canons.htm
[xxxiii] http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/ephesus_to_celestine.shtml
[xxxiv] http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/ephesus_on_nicea.shtml
[xxxv] collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253] http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
[xxxvi] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-99.htm#P6387_2042966
[xxxvii] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/footnote/fn64.htm#P6438_2069301
[xxxviii] http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
[xxxix] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm
[xl] Ibid., session 2 http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
[xli] Letter XLIV. To Theodosius Augustus. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-49.htm#P1334_326773)
[xlii] quoted in Whelton, p64.
[xliii] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm

[Montalban]

After a brief reading of this, it is very well written in your documentation of the fact that the Pope has no grounds for his claims to Universal Sovereignty.
I haven't finished yet ! :D

[Montalban]

APPENDIX E – The Acacian Schism.
The Acacian Schism is another thing plucked out of the context of history and given as proof of papal power.
The Emperor imposed upon the eastern churches an oath at behest of the Pope. He was playing politics. He was doing this at a time he needed help. Fifteen years earlier, he had been in a different position, and had ordered Pope Vigilius to Constantinople, and placed him under arrest for 10 years. This incident is however not noted by Catholics for it shows not the supremacy of the Pope, but the supremacy of the Emperor, who forced his will on the eastern church when he needed to, and on the western church likewise. The Emperor already had control over the east at the time of the ‘Acacian Schism’, and could more easily control affairs there.
Thus...
"The Emperors considered the Pope to be their subject as well as the Patriarch; and the Pope was more important because he was physically less easy to control and politically more useful owing to the influence he commanded in Italy (which Justinian was trying to regain). Thus if the Pope could only be placated by humiliating the Patriarch, the Emperor was usually prepared to order the patriarch to recognise papal superiority..." [xlix]
Likewise... "But the fear of compromising the autonomy of their churches prevented the Orientals from accepting the claims that were made by certain Popes, especially Gelasius, Symmacus and Nicholas I, the claim to direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church, including the east."[l]
The oath was "In following all these things the apostolic see and in professing all its constitutions, I hope that I will deserve to remain in the same communion with you which is professed by the apostolic see, in which persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion. Promising also not to recite in the liturgy the names of men who have been separated from communion with the Catholic Church which means, who do not agree with the apostolic see...."[li]
HOWEVER
"Before signing the document, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: "I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of the Apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be the one see." In doing this, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Constantinople declared that the Sees of Roman and Constantinople were equal."[lii]
AND, the admission of any Patriarch to any one thing does not make it Orthodox, because we don't believe in the infallibility of individuals, but of the church as a whole, and doctrine is only defined by the church as a whole. So, even if Justinian effectively points a gun (or a sword) to his head, and makes him say anything, that does not validate papal claims.
APPENDIX F – The Catholic Church.
What does it mean, by the term ‘catholic’? Prior to Augustine, it used to mean ‘complete’ or ‘whole’. Each person is completely ‘catholic’. Each church, headed by a bishop is completely ‘catholic’ and the whole church is ‘catholic’. This unity in diversity reflects the triune nature of God. St. Cyprian wrote on this, but is oft misused.
In his work on the unity of the Catholic Church, St. Cyprian wrote…
“And although Her assignes a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church’s] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shephereds, we are shown but one cflock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”[liii] This text is much quoted by Romans as proof of Petrine supremecy.
However the Jesuit scholar Bévnot says…
“The whole context is against restricting the meaning to ‘the see of Rome.’ Cyrprian’s argument is based on the unicity of the origin (in Peter) of Church and authority alike. The one authority was perpetuated in the legitimate successions of the bishops, and to break with one’s bishop was to break with the one, Christ-established, authority, that is, the ‘Chair of Peter.’ Thus his argument was pertinent not only for Rome, where Novatian had broken with Cornelius (who’s ‘chair’ was Peter’s in a double sense), but also nearer home, where Feliccissimus and his faction were in revolt against himself.
However, for those who recognised the true primacy of the see of Rome, Cyrpian’s words (taken out of their context) would naturally express the necessity of communion with Rome. It is not unreasonable to suppose (until proof of the contrary is forthcoming) that such an interpretation, put upon his words at the time of the baptismal controversy, led Cyprian to revise this chapter of its final addition.”[liv] (see Addendum to see St. Cyprian’s revised text)
This is reflected in Tertullian’s work…
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile![lv]
That is to say, for Rome, the very authority of ALL the apostles is held. The church there is complete; Catholic.
ADDENDUM – The Revised text of St. Cyprian
“It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you ....Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man's, they shall be retained," yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church is figured in the Canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord's name, says: "One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb." If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, has he still confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness saying: "One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God"?[lvi]
[xlix] Sir Steven Runciman, "The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XII Centuries," pp17-18, quoted in Whelton, p82.
[l] Francis Dvornik, “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy” (Roman Catholic scholar at Harvard University) , p165 quoted in Whelton, M., p83.
[li] Cambridge Medieval History - vol 2, pp246-247, quoted in Whelton, M., p81.
[lii] Whelton, pp81-82.
[liii] St. Cyprian “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”, 4, quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press), pp123-4.
[liv] De Unitate 4, Bevenot, quoted in Cartlton, pp124-5.
[lv] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics - Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith quoted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3125_1133921
[lvi] English text taken from St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, tr. M. Bévenot, Ancient Christian Writers, v. 25 (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 46-47. (Hereinafter referred to as Unity.) For the Latin text, see Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, ed. M. Bévenot, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, v. 3 (Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Ponificii, 1972), pp. 251-52. (Hereinafter referred to as De Unitate.) Bévenot seems to have a corner on Cyprian interpretation. Besides the English and Latin editions cited above, he has done the definitive work on the manuscripts: M. Bévenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) and the article for the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Cyprian, St.," 4:564-66. The last person who challenged his judgment, apparently, was J. Le Moyne in "Saint Cyprien est-il bien l'auteur de la re'daction breve du 'De Unitate' chapitre 4?", Revue Benedictine 63:70-115 (1953). This is effectively answered in M. Bévenot, " 'Primatus Petro Datur': St. Cyprian on the Papacy," Journal of Theological Studies 5:19-35 (1954). (Hereinafter referred to as "Primatus Petro Datur.") For bibliography on Cyprian n general, see M. Bévenot, De Unitate, pp. xii-xiv; on the work De Unitate in particular, pp. xvii-xxi. Quoted at http://www.nds.edu/lonergan/papal.htm



Note
That's it. The reason I put this together was because I was goaded by Catholic 'friends' who gave me a whole list of quotes or Orthodox allegedly supporting Petrine Primacy. My work consisted of a reply to them, as well as a summation of Whelton's excellent book. I feel I can write more about the 'real' meaning of Catholicism, which I only touched upon in Appendix F - that is, that Catholic means 'complete', rather than 'universal'.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I haven't finished yet ! :D

I did not realize you were not done yet, sorry! :) LOL! Don't forget that I Nicea sets the boundaries of Episcopal authority as being within the own Diocese of that Bishop. Further, think about this. A pope in 382 attempted to declare the Canon of the New Testament, but the question of the Canon of the New Testament was not settled until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 398, I think. you might want to check the dates on those councils). If the Pope had universal jurisdiction, why did he need 2 councils of Bishops to rattify his decision??

[Happy Orthodox]

Let's wait till our Catholic friends show up :) Boy, that'll be interesting!

[xenia]

Let's wait till our Catholic friends show up :) Boy, that'll be interesting!

That'll be unfair, since they won't be allowed to debate in here. :sigh:

[Montalban]

Let's wait till our Catholic friends show up Boy, that'll be interesting!

I put some of the stuff on the 'non-Christian religions' thread - in direct answer to someone's questions about the difference between Orthodox and Catholics, and a Catholic moderator locked the thread - not saying one thing led to the other :D

[xenia]

Closed for staff review