The Whore of Babylon

[Rhyfelwyr]

I said nothing of Papal Supremacy, merely that Pope Leo Was "head" of the Church and that he was the one who declared Hippo ecumunical. Whether the Pope is an absolute monarch or not is a largely political issue of Church governance and Episcopal Hierarchy. Whether he should be at the head of the College of Bishops is really only disputed by Constantinople, and the Patriarch has several times accepted the principle.

Hippo was the consolidation of Augustine's Conclusions. The issue has never been debated in Ecumunical Council, and while the Canon is broadly accepted, there remain issues even today; particularly with regard to Old Testement Apocypha. The question of how to use New Testement Apocrypha has never been properly addressed. Augustine became the final authority because he had both Papal and Imperial backing; the only way to enforce something on the regional Churches.

The relevance of Papal Supremacy is that it is only once this doctrine is asserted that we can truly say such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church existed, in the sense that it is the sole, catholic/universal church, based in the city of Rome. And while this was an issue of governance within the western church as you said, it is for our purposes here a much more important point. It is only after this (what maybe even you may see as) heretical doctrine was declared that the legitimate position of the Bishop of Rome was usurped by the power that would emerge as the Papacy we know today. The reason why I am saying all this is because you said that in declaring the authority of Hippo, the western church accepted the canon on the grounds of Papal authority. But I would argue there was no Papal authority at this time, since there was no Roman Catholic Church. No claims of supremacy, just the Bishop of Rome.

Oft repeated is not the same as well established, the majority of Christins have always rejected the doctrine. An even higher percentage of Christians consider Calvin to be pretty much the worst thing come out of Renaissance Theology.

The fact that more people believe something doesn't make give it any more weight in an argument. Most 'Christians' today wouldn't even be considered such when taking their own statements of their faith and pitting them against Jesus' own words.

Well, I suppose if you believe the majority of Christians actually follow the Devil then this would be a problem for you. However, the rest of us would very much like to get on with the businness of putting the Church back together, thank you very much.

Heh, I guess when we have threads like this, there are always going to be so many differences underlying our positions that it's hard to understand where the other person is coming from. If you agree with most Catholic practises, you will see the expansion of the RCC as the flourishing of the church on earth. If you disagree, you will see its expansion as the terrifying and unstoppable fulfilment of apocalyptic prophecies.

Remember, despite assertions, often by atheists, that Catholics/Protestants are forever attacking each other over minor points of doctrine, this simply isn't true. In many respects, Catholicism is the polar opposite of the religion I practice. Catholicism is based on ecclesiastical hierarchy, ritualistic worship, a belief in human goodness, free will, mysticism etc. I don't just slightly deviate from these, my beliefs are the total opposite. 0% agreement.

If this wasn't the case, I would have no problem with the ecumenical movement (which for me, is fast becoming what multiculturalism is to Fragony). I go to a Presbyterian church, even though I disagree with a number of its practises which came about as a result of liberal influence. Another Christian I know wonders why I don't just join his own much more fundamentalist Baptist Church. But, I try not to get all righteous and turn away Christian fellowship just because of minor doctrinal differences. Look what Paul put up with with the Corinthians! But with Catholicism as I said it's more than this, it really is the opposite of what I believe. It's the opposite of my conception of what Christ taught and what he was, hence it is antichrist.