The Diocese of Egypt

I’m going to take a break from my on-going series on masculinity to report on Monday’s breaking news. In an unprecedented move, the Vatican has approved the blessing of same-sex couples. The news—which has been rumored for some time, finally became a reality on Monday. This has divided Roman Catholics into two camps: those who view the document as a clear defense of historical church teaching and those who view it as a major step towards official Roman Catholic sanctioning of LGBTQ+ relationships.

The Roman Catholic Axiom

Roman Catholic Eric Sammons discusses the latter in great detail in “Breaking Down Fiducia Supplicans.” I highly recommend reading his post, but today I want to focus on one quote from that article in particular:

The most insidious aspect of modern heresy is that it loudly proclaims itself to be orthodox. But it divorces orthodoxy from orthopraxy.

Frequent readers will recognize this as the Roman Catholic axiom:

sola ecclesia (the church alone)

This axiom results in the following belief…

The recent explicates the older

…where the church looks to itself (the recent and now) to explain what came before (the older). Sammons is shocked to find that the axiom—which as been used since the late 4th century—continues to be used to slowly innovate doctrine.[1] In short, Roman Catholics believe that whatever the current church teaches is what the church has always taught, regardless of the historicity of the claim. For 1600 years, the church has developed many doctrines that it now loudly proclaims to be orthodox for all time (past, present, and future).[1] The implicit approval of same-sex relationships is just one of many such doctrines, and it will not be the last.

Six months ago in “Unity in the Church,” I noted Roman Catholicism is divided on homosexuality. There I quoted John C. Wright who used the uniformity of authority of the church—sola ecclesia—to condemn homosexuality for all time:

In other words, something that the main mass of Christian men have always taught and believed, such as abominable nature of sodomy, cannot be in error.

At the time I stated that the issue is not resolved:

If the Pope were to agree with Father Martin and declare [that homosexuality is not a sin] in his full official capacity, the new way would have then always been the teaching of the church, with those teaching otherwise having been in error the whole time.

And so, I am not surprised that the church has taken another step towards acceptance of same-sex relationships. Not only has Father Martin not been disciplined by the church, but he is ecstatic by this new papal declaration.

Underlying this whole issue is the concept that the Bishop of Rome—the Pope—has authority over the whole church, so that what he declares is law in the church. But this was not always the case.

The Diocese of Egypt

The Diocese of Egypt was not formed between 373 and 381AD, about five decades after the Council of Nicæa in 325AD. This may seem obscure and unimportant, but it unveils the single most shocking and damning set of facts regarding papal authority:

Papal Rome did not exist prior to the late 4th century.

…and…

Rome did not even have primacy within its own diocese, let alone within the universal church.

The most persistent Roman Catholic doctrinal innovation is based on historical error. To show this, let’s go back a bit further in time.

In 307AD, Meletius of Lycopolis unlawfully ordained bishops outside his jurisdiction. From that point until 451AD, no less than five church councils had to deal with ecclesiastical and Metropolitan jurisdictional problems, such as dealing with multiple Metropolitians in a single geographical unit. Most importantly, the Council of Nicaea (325AD) in Canon 6 defined jurisdictional boundaries between the Metropolitans of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem within that single province: the East (or Oriens). Specifically, it gave Antioch jurisdictional primacy over both Alexandria and Jerusalem, citing “the custom of Rome.” This custom of Rome would later be cited as evidence of the primacy of Rome because—by tradition—Rome has always had primacy, but as we will see this is both circular reasoning and an ignorance of history.

In 325AD, the Metropolitan seat of the Diocese of Italy was with the Bishop in Milan.[2][3][4] The “custom of Rome” referred to Rome being under the Bishop of Milan, carving out a smaller defined and restricted geographic boundary within the diocese. At the Council of Nicaea, it was decided that so too would both Alexandria and Jerusalem both be granted limited geographic scope under the overall provincial primacy of Antioch. The example of the limited authority of the Bishop of Rome was cited to solve the problem between three Metropolitans in a single province. Far from Roman Papal Primacy from the apostolic age, the Bishop of Rome did not even have primacy within his own diocese until 358AD at the earliest.

In 370AD, Optatus of Milevus would be the first to declare that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.[5] This was in direct contradiction to the early patristic writers, such as Irenaeus[6] and Eusebius[7], who recognized Linus as the first Bishop of Rome. The early church did not believe that Peter—an apostle—was ever a bishop of Rome, let alone a pope. This novelty would set the stage for what followed.

By the Council of Constantinople in 381, the Roman provinces were now dioceses. Sometime in the six decades that followed Nicaea and the two decades since 358AD, the ecclesiastical unit of the church had changed from provinces to dioceses and the civil diocese of the East had split into two (Egypt and East). No longer was there a single province containing Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. The Diocese of the East contained Antioch and Jerusalem, while the Diocese of Egypt contained Alexandria.

At the Council of Nicaea (324AD), the East (Oriens) contained Alexandria.

At the Council of Constantinople (381AD), Egypt (containing Alexandria) was its own diocese.

By this time, Rome had claimed the diocesan primacy from Milan, and the previous arrangement determined by the Council of Nicaea was forgotten or ignored. A year after Constantinople, at the council of Rome in 382AD, Pope Damasus I would declare:

“the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches”
— Council of Rome, III.1

Damasus was the first to successfully make this assertion.

Damasus was the first pope to refer to Rome as the apostolic see, to distinguish it as that established by the apostle St. Peter, founder of the church. In 380 the emperors Gratian in the West and Theodosius in the East declared Christianity as preached by Peter to be the religion of the Roman Empire and defined orthodoxy as the doctrines proclaimed by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Rome’s primacy was officially pronounced by a synod called in Rome in 382 by Damasus, who was perhaps wary of the growing strength of Constantinople, which was already claiming to be the New Rome. St. Jerome (c. 342–420) attended the synod and stayed on to become Damasus’s secretary, close adviser, and friend. Damasus commissioned him to revise the Latin translations of the Bible for what subsequently became known as the Vulgate.
— Encyclopedia Brittanica, “St. Damasus I” (2022)

Jerome—close friend of Damasus—would become his greatest ally. In his dispute with John of Jerusalem in 398AD, Jerome claimed that Nicaea had granted Antioch jurisdiction over Jerusalem in the diocese of the East and over Alexandria in the diocese of Egypt because of the custom of the primacy of Rome. Jerome’s claim—whether intentional or by accident—was an impossible historical anachronism.[8]

The primary of Rome was asserted through a misunderstanding of its historical lack of primacy

Combined with the political power of two emperors, Damasus and Jerome were able to fabricate the doctrine of Roman Papal Primacy out of thin air, indeed by citing as evidence the very historical record that disproved it. By no coincidence, this occurred along with the single greatest corruption of scripture—the Latin Vulgate.

In 449AD, Pope Leo I would fraudulently claim that the canons of the council of Sardica were actually from Nicaea, deliberately misquoting them in order to claim that Rome was always chief of its diocese and to demonstrated the primacy of Rome to resolve all church disputes. In so doing, he perpetuated and cemented the false doctrine of Roman Papal Primacy.

The historical error has persisted. In 1880, Father James Loughlin made the exact same anachronistic mistake in arguing for the primacy of the Pope to assign jurisdictions (over the other two Petrine Seats of Antioch and Alexandria).[9] Around the same time and making the same mistake, famed historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893), in his history of the Christian Church, incorrectly claimed that Rome had always had its own diocese.

Not only was not church not unified as a single institution under a single head, that is a pope, we have only established the prior to the late 4th century, the head of the church was Christ and in the late 4th century Christ was replaced by the Pope. No Roman Catholic church council or pope has any authority over the body of Christ. We must thus reject Roman Papal Primacy on the basis of the “custom of Rome:”

Any Christian who accepts the Nicene Creed accepts the authority of the Council of Nicaea.

If we are to accept the authority of the Council of Nicaea in their declaration of the Nicene Creed, then we must accept its authority to rely on the inferiority of Rome to resolve a jurisdictional dispute in the church.

Fiducia Supplicans

And so we round back to Fiducia Supplicans. The pope is not magically protected from bad doctrine because God placed him as the head of Christianity. Those Roman Catholics who smugly declare that the church cannot be corrupted because the Pope is God’s infallible agent are badly mistaken. The very foundation of their doctrine is based on an historical anachronism: the Bishop of Rome wasn’t even the head of the early church, because Rome itself was not the foremost member of churches.

Through something as simple as…

The Diocese of Egypt didn’t exist at the Council of Nicaea

…we get…

The doctrine of Roman Primacy is an historical anachronism

…and this leads us to today, where Catholics are confused about why the Pope is leading them into doctrinal error, having failed to grasp that their Pope isn’t the head of Christianity, let alone divinely protected from error. He will, like the Protestant churches before him, continue to pursue error. Don’t assume this can or will improve.

See also: “‘Fiducia supplicans’: Who’s saying what?

Footnotes

[1] These are some of the Roman Catholic innovations developed since the late 4th century: papal and Roman primacy, papal infallibility, priestly celibacy, elevation of virginity and fasting over marriage, Mariology (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption of Mary, Mother of the Church), kneeling on the Lord’s Day, incense, candles, relics and images, veneration of the cross, baptismal regeneration, intercession of the saints, the title of Pontifex Maximus, ex communicare replaced by ex civitate, taking up the civil sword to persecute and kill the faithful, civil taxes flowing through the Bishops and priestly wealth acquisition, the church holidays (Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday), and the eucharistic alterations: the alteration of the liturgical order, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, eucharistic adoration, communion on the tongue, the liturgical mixing of water with wine.

[2]  Athanasius, “Apologia Contra Arianos, Part II, chapter 6,  paragraph 89

[3]  Athanasius of Alexandria, Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, paragraph 8

[4] Athanasius of Alexandria, Apologia ad Constantium, 27

[5]  Optatus of Milevis “Adversus Parmenianum“, Book 2, Chapter 2

[6]  Irenaeus “Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3.3

[7]  Eusebius, “Church History“, Book III, Chapters 2, 13, 21

[8] Jerome, “To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem”, paragraphs 4, 10 and 37.

[9] James Loughlin, “The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy”, American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 5

 

33 Comments

  1. Riuoku

    I am a catholic, and while I won’t argue the historic reasons behind The Papal Infallibility since I am more or less satisified (at least for now) with how I view it and thus didn’t feel to need to do such extensive research.

    Many people think (even catholics) that the so called “papal infallibility” is absolute, while it is not. It is in play only when pope speaks as “ex cathedra”. According to wikipedia only following documents are considered “ex cathedra”:

    Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
    Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
    Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;
    Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
    Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning several Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
    Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
    Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

    So the last one was made by the last non-modernist Pope AKA Pius XII in 1950.

    If any of the post-Vaticanum II popes made any statement of such stature, then there would be a self-contradition, and belief of “the papal infallibility” would be proven to be fake.

    “The recent explicates the older” is what justifies actions of SSPX to separate themselves from orders of the Vatican since their [the Vatican as a whole] actions contradict the tradition. One can still be a true catholic, even after all the blasphemys happening currently in Rome.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “I am a catholic, and while I won’t argue the historic reasons…”

      That’s fair and I respect that. My views on Roman Catholicism as a religion are decidedly negative, but I won’t attack you personally for your beliefs.

      “Many people think (even catholics) that the so called “papal infallibility” is absolute, while it is not.”

      Yes, I’ve commented on that fact before on this blog, but that’s a bit beside the point, which is that if Rome never had primacy, then the Bishop of Rome never had primacy either. And given that, there is no reason to interpret this declaration according to that assumption.

      You can read the divided responses of various Catholic Bishops here. It is clear that there are two camps: (1) those saying that the declaration is an affirmation of traditional and historical values that changes nothing; and (2) those saying this is a victory for the recognition of same-sex relationships that moves forward. It cannot be both. (I believe it is the latter, in case that wasn’t clear enough.)

      IMO, viewing this through the Roman frame of Roman and Papal primacy is causing people to draw the wrong conclusions about the declaration, conclusions that they would not draw if they were considered soberly outside of that context (e.g. from a Protestant perspective).

      Brother Earl—who used to comment extensively on Sigma Frame and Dalrock—is one of those who is defending the pope and the declaration. His reasoning is based on papal and ecclesiastical authority.

      “One can still be a true catholic, even after all the blasphemys happening currently in Rome.”

      I’m not here to weigh in on denominational factions within Roman Catholicism. It would run counter to my own positions to try to determine what a “true” catholic is. I certainly acknowledge that factions can and do exist, while others, like Earl, would likely deny their validity.

      1. Riuoku

        I had the impression from this article that you assumed absolutness of “papal infallibility” and made general negative conclusions about catholics as a whole from there.

        “The pope is not magically protected from bad doctrine because God placed him as the head of Christianity. Those Roman Catholics who smugly declare that the church cannot be corrupted because the Pope is God’s infallible agent are badly mistaken”

        Roman Catholics who declare that God magically protects popes from bad doctriness are childish, do not understand their denomination completely, and shouldn’t be posed as representatives of catholicism as a whole. It is like I choosed some dumb beliefs held by many uneducated protestants and made a general negative statement about protestantism.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          Riuoku,

          It’s more complicated than that. The Roman Catholics that I follow have a more general sense of church authority. Papal supremacy and infallibility—the soul of papal authority—are clearly in the minds of many. This comment by Brother Earl is the kind of thing that I am talking about:

          “Roman Catholics who declare that God magically protects popes from bad doctriness are childish, do not understand their denomination completely, and shouldn’t be posed as representatives of catholicism as a whole.”

          It’s not about whether the pope is always protected, it’s that they think he didn’t say anything wrong *this particular time*, and since the pope is God’s primary representative on earth, he should thus be respected and defended and those who do not are liars. This is followed by defenses of the declaration like this one.

          In other words, they think this declaration is correct and trust the head of their church and think that not doing so is disobedience to the authority of the church.

          I think they are delusional, that the progressive script is being followed in the church. All the same tactics used elsewhere are being used here: the control of language, the double-speak, the plausible deniability, the slippery-slope slowly moving the Overton Window, etc. My opinion is that, were it not for Roman primacy (and thus papal primacy), they would not be fooled.

          Unsurprisingly, John C. Wright has joined the pope’s defenders:

          “The mainstream media, hereafter called the voice of sauron, is agitated and enthused by the rumors, concocted by the voice of sauron, that Pope Francis has permitted the blessing of sodomite marriage unions. As with most things uttered by the voice of sauron, this is not merely a falsehood but the diametric opposite of the truth. This is not even a case where the Pope spoke in ambiguous language creating an opening for scandal. It is merely a lie. The document signed by the Pope says the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.”

          Truly, this illustrates how rational faculties can deceive, if one only applies them selectively. Let’s compare this comment by Wright…

          “So, yes indeed, a priest can bless two sodomites, or any other group of sinners, without requiring a visit to the confessional, or some other official formality rite or ritual, just so long as the blessing is not done in any circumstances that might create the confusing appearance of blessing a sodomite marriage union.”

          …with the reality of appearances:

          Mark my words, the time is coming when Roman Catholics will have to choose who their master is.

          Peace,
          DR

          1. Liz

            Good to see Earl is still around. Wondered what happened to him.
            Last interaction I can recall he stated that Lena Dunham needed an exorcism.
            I quipped (quoting it as ex-orcism):
            “we can try, but I think she will remain an orc”

  2. Lastmod

    A few Catholics I know online have stated “ist not marriage! Its just a blessing! Totally different than marriage!!!”

    It will quietly and suddenly “become” marriage in a year or two. SAme thing happened in the Methodist church in the 1990’s. Episcopol, Presybaterian. It was just a “recognition” and “dont worry about it!”

    Then it went normal and was “marriage” and all the dispute was already shuttered

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Lastmod,

      The same thing happened to the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren, two Anabaptist denominations. It also happened to one of the last remaining holdouts: The United Methodist Church. And of course this has been going on in American politics for some time as well.

      In the Roman Catholic Church, Germany is leading the charge towards approval of same-sex relationships. Not all Roman Catholics are aware of this, but this link makes it clearer who is driving this change.

      From here:

      A lot of Catholics recognize this, and a lot do not. I’ve never seen Roman Catholics so divided between those who see what you describe and those who insist that nothing has changed. Trad Catholics are calling their own brethren liars for seeing what is plainly obvious to us.

      Perhaps the last time something this significant has happened in Roman Catholicism was Vatican II in the 1960s. For many, the wounds from that have not healed.

      Peace,
      DR

      1. Lastmod

        The Salvation Army still will not wed “same sex” couples, nor bless them. If you are gay, and want to get married the Salvation Army will kindly direct you to churches that affirm this. There is a movement right now to allow “same sex” unions within the Salvation Army. I am assuming it will happen in the next couple of years.

        I know many “christian churches” (non-denom) that not even ten years ago would not do this….but are slowly moving towards this as well. Quite a few now allow women on the “Boards” and their excuse is “the men are not stepping up”

        Mostly because the “men” are too busy working (should have gotten a STEM degree or should have been born with “all the gifts”) or the men that are up and coming in the church aside from the praise leader….are denied ANY leadership…that is only for “the pastor and the important people that God has called when they were three and a half”

        Womenin churches like this are “small letter c conservative” they hyphanate their names, but are for “traditional values” only until its time for them to lead. Your Megan Kelly’s, your Marjorie Taylor-Green’s fir this model in modern protestantisms bold n biblical churches.

  3. professorGBFMtm

    ”Womenin churches like this are “small letter c conservative” they hyphanate their names, but are for “traditional values” only until its time for them to lead. Your Megan Kelly’s, your Marjorie Taylor-Green’s fir this model in modern protestantisms bold n biblical churches.”

    the most sad thing is most MEN in those churches and watching fox news(which like my all-time favorite(in reality , the only one i ever actually wanted to listen to for long periods of time ) talk radio show host Michael Savage use to say is nothing more than CNN news from ten years earlier like most conservatives are only mainstream liberals from 20-30 years earlier ) couldn’t care less as long as the women say ”the right things” and look sexy and ” good’.

    These tend to later become most ”redpillers” who can’t believe they were ”tricked” by women, government ,churches and society (the most ”tricked” ones are the one s who can’t stop blaming in most comment sections throughout the’ sphere either).

    1. Lastmod

      Well said. M Savage, remember him saying that in the late 1990’s “todays republicans are at the same political stances that Jimmy Carter was at in 1979”

      So many men my age and older who are supposedly Red Pilled…….when Megan Kelly was on Fox “she’s a brilliant journalist, she is just amazing”

      No. She was dressed like she was going to a nightclub as soon as the newscast was over, she was pretty and was swank material for men like this…a NAWALT. If she looked like Barbara Walters from 1974, none of these men would have cared. RP men concerning women….if they are “hot” and show a tad of being “traditional” she must be good and wife material. If Ugly? “She didnt embrace her gender role and is now on the news trying to compete in a mans world”

      Also, M kelly was the one who told us “Jesus was a white man” and NO ONE on Fox News told her “she was wrong” nor did the old Republican golfer types in check-pants. Nor did any “bold and biblical” pastor (Driscoll, et al) come out and correct her. Why?

      Because she was *hot* and is “traditional”

    2. Lastmod

      Same with current nerd-chic NAWALT Kat Timpf on “Gutfield!” (who will not use her husbands name btw and has been married for almost four years). I think she is more funny / comic type and quick witted than a “journalist” or “politcal contributor to Fox news” which she is branded as.

      Again, if she looked like Marsha Clarke or Melissa Gilbert she would not be on the TV screen, she would be in a office at Fox writing copy

  4. Bardelys the Magnificent

    The reason nobody understands papal primacy is that they only look at the Catholic side of the equation. The missing puzzle piece is the Orthodox. Before 1054, there was one Church with five Patriarchs, all equal in power and dignity, but *of which Rome had primacy.* In practice, none of them could act without the consent of the other four, but if there was a tie-breaker, Rome got it. Christianity was also larger and spreading faster in the papal lands than the Orthodox, so they had an argument for more emphasis there as well. Lastly there’s the Chair of Peter argument, which says that Christ gave the keys to Heaven to Peter, and since he 1) ended up in Rome, and 2) was first amongst equals of the Apostles, the branch of the Church he headed should have some slight favor. Since most Catholics and all Protestants see the Orthodox as some weird sect closer to Buddhism than Christianity, their history or parts played never gets any study, and since Orthodoxy and Catholicism are 99.5% the same (hello Filioque), and they share a millennia of history as one unit, you cannot fully understand one until you also understand the other.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Bardelys,

      This is, IMO, a very important issue.

      “The reason nobody understands papal primacy is that they only look at the Catholic side of the equation. The missing puzzle piece is the Orthodox. [..] you cannot fully understand one until you also understand the other.”

      Can you explain what you mean?

      “Before 1054, there was one Church [..] since Orthodoxy and Catholicism are 99.5% the same (hello Filioque), and they share a millennia of history as one unit, you cannot fully understand one until you also understand the other.”

      The Orthodox/Catholic schism has a lot in common with this controversy over same-sex unions, as well as other modern instances of development:

      There is some irony in that “communion on the hand” is still a controversy among Catholics even as you mention the 1054AD split. For in the midst of the Filioque Controversy in 1054AD, both sides met in Constantinople:

      “At Constantinople the impression bequeathed by Cardinal Humbert and other western visitors was one of incredible arrogance. … It offended western visitors to find that at the consecration of the elements, Greeks did not add water to the cup until after the bread and the wine were sanctified.” — Henry Chadwick, “East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church.” (2003) p.226.

      Both the East and West disagreed on the liturgy of the Eucharist on the issue of water mixed with wine. Consequently, they were unable to have communion with each other, which only served to doom any chance of resolving the Filioque Controversy.

      However, both the West and the East had erred in their theological explanation for the water mixed with win. Each believed that their positions were apostolic (see the fourth example here), as they both arrogantly elevated their false tradition to law. To this day both sides remain ignorant and incorrect on the liturgical use of wine and water regarding the Eucharist and their disunity was self-inflicted.

      The reason this is so pertinent to same-sex unions is because Roman Catholics have a long and storied history of doctrinal development. Regardless of how upset they are now about the pope approving of same-sex unions, they or their ancestors will one day accept the new normal as just that: normal. Unless there is a schism, then given enough time, this controversy will disappear, and if that means normalized acceptance of gay unions, that will become orthodox. This is what has been done with virtually every controversy in the past. It is already happening after only a few days:

      This has been occurring for centuries such that each new development has progressed to the point where both sides of the debate are long since divorced from the apostolic ways. The East/West split demonstrated that, and many of the internal Roman Catholic controversies (e.g. communion on the hand) are not different. The recognition of same-sex unions has progressed through various steps from a history of killing homosexuals to blessing their relationships.

      “Lastly there’s the Chair of Peter argument, which says that Christ gave the keys to Heaven to Peter, and since he 1) ended up in Rome, and 2) was first amongst equals of the Apostles, the branch of the Church he headed should have some slight favor.”

      But there were three Petrine seats—chairs of Peter—not one. Why not Alexandria (where his direct successor was) or Antioch (Peter’s first seat)? Why does it matter that Peter ended up in Rome? Even given the assumption about the keys, Antioch’s and Alexandria’s claims to primacy were just as strong, if not stronger. In particular, only Antioch (Peter’s first seat) was the only one to ever be the primary jurisdictional Metropolitan within its province/diocese in an unbroken succession. Neither Rome nor Alexandria can make that claim.

      You can see the political genius of Rome as it maneuvered to position itself at the top:

      “Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter ‘having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]’. However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom. Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.” (Council of Rome, III.3, 382AD)

      Notice how Rome framed Antioch—which had the strongest unbroken claim—as the third? So when you say…

      “one Church with five Patriarchs, all equal in power and dignity, but *of which Rome had primacy.*”

      …how can you justify that against what Pope Gregory the Great said during his papacy from 590-604AD?

      “Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple [Mark] as evangelist. He himself established the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL, To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria)

      And the “Three as one” motif was repeated by Pope Benedict XVI (pope from 2005 to 2013):

      “It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees—Rome, Antioch and Alexandria—among which Rome, as the site of Peter’s martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative.” (Benedict XVI, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, II.2.b “The Petrine Succession in Rome”)

      It is clear from these Popes that they viewed the leadership of the church as made up of one complete entity that is composed from three, not five, entities.

      Doesn’t this sound familiar to Daniel 7:8?

      “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.”

      Peace,
      DR

      1. Lastmod

        My dad was culturally Catholic and lapsed too. Born in Poland…which means…you are Catholic. The Catholic church was always the traditional steward of Polish history, art, language and culture. Remember there was no “poland” for over almost 500 years at one point. The Polish people to this day do have a “nod” to the Catholic church in these matters. It is still “respected” as a cultural institution of Polish heritage. When the Nazis came in…and the Soviets after them…..churches were spared. Art was spared. What WAS NOT spared was all birth records, and records of the Polish nobility and the like, which was in the hands and care of the Catholic church in Poland. That was all seized and destroyed. Those were the only things taken from the church in Poland by both groups. The Russians and the Nazis NEVER wanted a Polish nobility or aristocracy to rise again. It hasnt. The Soviets wanted it destroyed for other reasons……no more “proof” of private property, land ownership or which family could lay claim to certain lands.

        He said as a boy in Poland he remembered the scripture being read in Latin. Not Polish, not English (when he first came to the USA in 1946). He also said “you could not take Communion unless you went to confession” (this was back in the 1940s during the Nazi occupation, and what he remembered as a teen in the USA in the 1950’s).

        Its easy to “diss” the Catholic church, and some of that is well deserved……however I recall my days in The Salvation Army and working with Father Garcia at Catholic Charities in Fresno. He had a deep love of God, and was called into the priesthood after college. He got his business degree, gave it to his parents and said “see, I got a college degeree, just like you wanted” and then he renounced all, and entered Seminary to become a priest. I did attend a service once and saw him preach and lead at St. Marys in Fresno. Fluently in English, and drift seamlessly into Spanish and back again into English. He loved his congregation very much and was very into helping the “poor”

        He in his vestments one day, and I in my Sally Army uniform sat in his office made an odd sight. We wre the same age, and we laughed about how “fifty years ago a catholic and protestatnt could barely sit in the same room like we are”

        One can say “works” wont do it. Okay. By “faith” alone, but this mans dedication to Jesus’s message in the street and in helps was something that made me change my view about everyone in the Catholic church.

        That church has the same problem as protestantism: They firmly believe that “if we dont change, the young people wont come” and are more frightend of money and the collection plate drying up. They are also terrified of what “people think about them”

        Hence these stances. And changes. No denom is immune.

        In fact, before we get the “real men” defending Orthodoxy as the “real man, red pill faith” in Texas several Orthodox priests have come out against the Texas abortion laws / restrictions and more than a few are hardly “conservative” in their biblical practices.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “Its easy to “diss” the Catholic church, and some of that is well deserved……however…No denom is immune.”

          And well I know this! After all, both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants killed the Anabaptists (my ethnic group), perhaps even some of my direct ancestors. Criticism of one does not imply support of another.

          I will say this though, I focus my attention on those who think they are immune to criticism, those who believe they are right by divine revelation or mandate.

  5. Lastmod

    I saw a post recently from Jacks page and he mentioned how his wife was complaining about pee splattering by him on the toilet and the like, his wife complained….so he purposely peed in the bed or something outrageous like this. I cannot seem to find it now….was it removed? Maybe. Did I dream it? No.

    I recall reading it, saying to myself “at least I’m housebroken” and as a lifelong bachelor, I dont like that either. I have to clean up after myself. I dont expect a date, or a “hook up” or a saintly, submissive girl from the local church to come over and clean up after me.

    Evidently, his boorish behavior worked perfectly and the wife submitted to his Frame and Game, and Authority and started cleaning up after him / quit complaining about it and I am sure she found it *hot* that he did this and *cute* too 🙂

    I recall a female recently behaving like this……poo in the bed, passive-aggressive behaviors that made national news. Bad manners are bad manners. Johhny Depp didnt find it *hot* nor did any man.

    Men who do this kind of thing are the same people who pee on public toilet seats because they think its *funny* have really no self-respect for anyone and then shout on social media “In Japan, its so clean…Americans cant have anything nice”

    While he pees in the bed to *piss* off his wife. People like this should be avoided and removed from your life.

    I personally think he mad up the whole thing or was trying to express a point that 99% of men, if tried would be slapped by everyone just on general principles.

    If being a man is behaving like feral wolf, or abused child……..the red pill is more trouble than I even thought.

  6. professorGBFMtm

    ” I cannot seem to find it now….was it removed? Maybe. Did I dream it? No.”

    It must have not ”tested”(got enough applause really)right.
    Dal rock would do similar stuff and forget all the ideas that didn’t perform right for his ”audience”
    In other words?
    He’s just following in saint(i liked where jack said that in that post he did back this past January or was it February as i mentioned it to ELSPETH at that time at SPAWNYS- where he called him that) dal rock’s ”sacred”(you know there was a few people speaking of dal rock’s heavy use of moderation for those who disagreed with him as early as summer 2012-including GBFM?) footsteps is all.

    ”If being a man is behaving like feral wolf, or abused child……..the red pill is more trouble than I even thought.”

    Dal rock didn’t listen to 6 or 7 guys saying similar i.e. all that ” dark triad” stuff somehow being compatible with CHRIST or being a husband or MAN in general to that in ’12-’14 , so his most dedicated followers will certainly not listen now.

    1. Lastmod

      I found it, it was a comment he made on one of his posts. He would pee all over her while they were taking a shower together (watersports kink obviously), all over the bathroom (just plain rude behavior) and the bed (downright crass, classless behavior)

      If this is what you have to do to “teach” your Unicorn, you can have it. I dont understand this world the top 10% of men live in, but it demonstrates they can do whatever they want with zero consequences.

      It says more about the women they married actually. If I married a woman who thought it was *funny* to do this as a grown man, you can have her. She obviously has severe daddy issues and other psychological abuse that she seems to crave from men like this.

      1. Liz

        I saw it, and had similar thoughts.
        Also, “wife asked me to put the lid on the toilet down so I pissed on her, the floor, and the mattress to teach her a lesson” in a write up entitled ”darkened delusions of male insecurity”, was either a stroke of genius level satire or…cognitive dissonance on an industrial strength level.
        But that story was nothing compared to the one about almost shooting himself in the head when his gun discharged under his pillow.

        1. Lastmod

          So, you are a hum-hum average guy who is learning “red pill” lore or tactics to prevent your wife from “upsuring” your authority as a man. And turning you into a worse cuck than you already evidently are….

          Wife asks you to take out the garbage, you decide to use this tactic to demonstrate your authority as a man….you pick up the garbage and dump it all over the floor and go back to watching the basketball game to “teach her a lesson” and the next day, you dump it all in the bed, or dump it on her.

          She will then somehow by this realize her *mistake* for speaking to you without permission, or telling you to do something and laugh about it, thus increasing her *tingles* for you.

          Reality is: you just demonstrated that you as a man will behave like a frat boy, a bratty kid who didnt get the toy at Walmart and act out like this.

          PUA and Game taught this same nonsense “treat your gal like she’s nothing. Treat her like a bratty sister, be an assh*e, and she will love you more”

          Does this work? Yes, for men who are above in the looks scale and have IOIs daily from women and who can “trade up” the second she asks to use the bathroom without his permission.

          Most men who would do something like this would be rightfully so, in the doghouse. Rollo even when his wife asks him to “do some household task” doesnt go into a tirade and lecture about “female dating and maritial power structure”, nor does he do what Jack does. He gets up and takes out the garbage. Probably like your hubby, probably even Scott does this as well.

          Of course…..if you DONT do what jack stated, “you as a man are deluded by blue pill thinking and are a cuck”

          Never once did my father behave like this to my mother. He was hardly a model of “simpdom” my dad poured concrete in the pouring rain, worked as a foreman, and was a hardcore farmboy growing up.

        2. Lastmod

          I guess he never took “NRA safety classes” on how to handle, use and respect a weapon either, and if he did “thats for simps” was his outlook, hence why advocates for gun control have not shut-up. Hence why we cant order them anymore from a catalog. Hence why the gazillion checks, hence why “gun control”

          Idiotic behaviors like this. High IQ doesnt mean smart evidently.

          1. Lastmod

            Men like this are the ones who “flushed the nerds head in the toilet” in the boys bathroom between classes in high school. Also was the guy who “tripped” and “knocked the books out of the special needs / resource room kids arms” in the hallway between classes.

            It was their own fault. God made them a man! They should have had the will to fight back, or not be a nerd, or not be special needs!”

            Bet he doesnt do this at his mothers home. Bet he doesnt do this at his in-laws home…..or his “pastors” home.

            Men with behaviors like this are the same men who have ruined the world, but “they are godly everyday, professing jesus”

            Its just a cope to justify their boorish behavior and manners.

          2. Lastmod

            He also stated on DS’s blog a year or two ago “he knows some churches that are vetting out single moms, the elderly, weak “blue pilled” men and the like to have a more energetic church”

            So much for the “gospel” being for “all” and so much for the countless people that Jesus himself ministered to. The lame, the broken, the lost, the helpless, the “average” and the criminal and the thief.

            Im telling you, in RP heaven…….its going to be the select few with their families, Rollo of course….even though he isnt christian “but god knows his heart, we cannot judge” and a few other bloggers.

            All that were killed in His over the centuries name were “cucked “because feminism, and those “no good blue pilled men” took over the faith in 936 AD or whatever…..

            These men dont like women. They like sex, the like “being in charge” and have severe insecurity issues and tie their identity to “the sex act”

            Worse than homosexuals who do the same thing

          3. Derek L. Ramsey

            “More odd even than the actions described are the retelling of events as though he is the hero in this story.”

            I can’t imagine living in a world where someone thinks such behavior makes one the hero of one’s wife. I really can’t.

          4. Liz

            Think it’s part and parcel to the confirmation bias environment phenomenon (that’s present in most places online now, at least to some degree).
            Same reason why a poster might say a thing 99 percent of the time (take something self evident such as, “actions matter”) and the moment someone they believe to be their internet adversary says the same “actions matter” they’ll state the opposite and call that person a fool and/or deceiver or some such.
            My resolution is to spend less time on the internet this year and more time doing real things in the community.

  7. professorGBFMtm

    ”Idiotic behaviors like this. High IQ doesnt mean smart evidently.”

    Which was pointed out at dal rock by GBFM on dalrocks post ”Why Christians need game.”
    Posted on August 6, 2012 by Dalrock
    If you are a Christian in the manosphere you likely have asked the question:

    Shouldn’t Christians be able to learn what they need to know about men and women and marriage from the Bible, and not from the studies by pickup artists and Evolutionary Psychologists?

    The short answer is yes. The Bible should be all you need.

    The problem is Christians have decided not to follow the Bible on the question of marriage in specific, and men and women in general. I’m not just talking about Christian enthusiasm for providing moral cover for frivolous divorce. I’m also talking about the numerous sections of the Bible which modern Christians are embarrassed about because the sections offend their newer and more dominant religion, feminism.

    Before we go any further, I want to acknowledge that Not All Christians Are Like That (NACALT). To avoid lumping all Christians together, I’ll outline the boundaries so those who don’t practice feminism first and Christianity second can take comfort in the fact that I’m not referring to them. What follows is not intended to be a complete list of areas where the Bible clashes with feminism, but it hopefully is representative enough of the conflict for you to determine which side of the fence you and those you know have landed on.”

    That and more is why GBFM said the following to the commenter unger and every one else at the dal rock blog….

    Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
    August 6, 2012 at 11:21 pm
    ^^^ yes unger!

    where in the bible doth it command da man to treat his wife like crap and game her to moisten her vaginal wallswhile making her anuth tingllzozlozozoozoz?

    such teachings are of dalrock, but they are not of christ and moses nor da GBFM lzoozozoz.

    sunshinemary says:
    August 6, 2012 at 11:32 pm
    Unger, GBFM
    Well, if game means “treating your wife like crap” then it is not what I was thinking it was. As for treating your wife like a bratty child…well, I don’t know. There IS a hierarchy, no? I’ve seen it put like this
    Christ .> men > women > children > puppies

    So in some ways it wouldn’t be wrong if he talked down to her a little bit, even if it was just to say “You’re acting like a bratty child. You will stop that now.” She ought not to act that way, but she’s a fallen sinner like we all are, so sometimes she does. His response keeps it from getting out of hand. The same way one of my children has to sit in time-out because she disobeyed me; she ought to obey me, but I’m here to correct her when she doesn’t. I don’t care if we call this dynamic game, or biblical leadership, or an anchovy pizza. ”

    See how long the fight against making game somehow biblical has been going on now?

    Yet guys like jack seem to think it just started 5 or so years ago.

  8. Lastmod

    Being a man now…..after all this basically means…….chanting “Trump!” nonstop (I remember the jocks in high school who would chant “tastses great! Less filling!” during sideline soccer, never tired of this), being a Grade A jerk, behaving like a college student at the age of 50 + circa 1988, insulting anyone who doesnt agree with you.

    There was a video of a woman griping about men who pick her up in certain cars for a date….if he drives an average car……..he’s “off” the list from any future dates.

    You should have seen the comments. Roasting and ratioing her…..as she should have been. BUT, every guy……….EVERY GUY………..with repsonses of:

    “When I get a date with a girl, I roll up in my Prius / old Ford Ranger / my rusted 1995 Honda Civic and if she is okay with that, the next date I bust out my Mercedes / higher trim Chevrolet, Ford, Toyota or Lexus” and of course…..”my classic 68 Chevelle” or “my fully restored 1992 Ford SHO Taurus”

    Its like every man has five cars sitting around for dating women. Its all BS. Most men today can barely afford their own newer car right now, and the practical ones are indeed still driving their 2007 Volkswagen Jetta TSI that has been paid for since 2010.

    Keyboard warriors. “You are doing it all wrong” guys who love insulting other men since the other men cant reach through the computer and smack the snot outta them, and these men will never INSULT a woman like this to her face…………..if shes hot!

    Yet he claims all the “game” he has.

        1. Lastmod

          You as well. Rang in the year at a lounge on Sunset Blvd inHollywood. It was my first DJ gig since April. I was asked / invited by the owner. I did four one hour sets with a thirty minute break between each. Was paid well. Before the lounge opend, he had a catered meal for all the staff (bartenders, waitresses on the like) and myself. It was a very kind gesture.

          Was paid quite well, and tipped too by patrons, guests. Crowd was 35 plus in age, so it wasnt full of “dumb” college age behavior. Yes, there were drugs there and people were drinking heavily but I was okay 🙂 I left at 3 AM and Sunset Blvd was packed with traffic still and sidewalks fulls. It was good to see. Weather was mild, no rain and a balmy 60 degrees.

          I got home exhausted and slept most of the day. Hoping 2024 is better, though I dont have the bar set too high on this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *