Send a Message
to NumberOneSon

Comments

361

Joined

Oct 23, 2010

NumberOneSon Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Seventh-day Adventist

1260 days of the Papacy from 538 AD to 1798

So did the pope have power over the Western empire in 549AD when the Ostrogothic king Totila cleared Rome of Byzantine forces and made it his headquarters? It's simply baffling to me how Belisarius "clearing " the city of Rome of Goths in 538AD somehow gave the Bishop of Rome power over the Western Roman Empire. Sometimes imaginations run wild, I guess.  (May 31, 2014 | post #66)

Seventh-day Adventist

1260 days of the Papacy from 538 AD to 1798

Exactly; it says the Little Horn shall subdue three kings. The various Bishops of Rome had virtually nothing to do with the destruction of Odoacer’s kingdom, the Vandal or the Ostrogothic kingdomsHow were the Vandals destroyed “in Italy” by the rise of the Roman papacy? The Vandals were in North AfricaNonsense. Most if not all of the tribal distinctions that existed in the 6th Century are gone today. Equating 6th Century tribes with modern nations is absurd. If you have evidence to the contrary I’ll be glad to see itNope, the papacy’s power was restored in full by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The wound that was healed in 1929 was the one given in 1870History shows nothing of the kind. The period of Justinian’s Reconquista was a time of diminished power for the papacy since, as we have already noted, the restraining power of the Caesars was once again gaining a foothold in Italy. It wasn’t until after the Lombard invasion and the deterioration of imperial power that the papacy’s power was able to grow. No one outside Christian historicist circles has ever claimed that the papacy was established in 538AD or that Justinian’s 533AD letter was somehow put into effect in 538AD…this is simply a Christian invention. The Ostrogoths were uprooted from outside the city of Rome in 538AD, but not from Italy; the war continued…and by 546AD the Ostrogoths were once again in control of most of the peninsula. They retook the city of Rome twice and held it as their capital in 549AD. There could be no established power of the papacy until the war ended, and that only happened after 553AD.  (May 31, 2014 | post #58)

Seventh-day Adventist

1260 days of the Papacy from 538 AD to 1798

While the Ostrogoths besieged Rome, the Byzantines had control over the city, central and southern Italy. When the Ostrogoths ended the siege, the Byzantines had control over…the city, central and southern Italy. What changed in regards to the papacy’s jurisdiction? Whatever supremacy you think Justinian’s letter awarded could have been implemented in Byzantine controlled territory before and during the siege. In 538AD, the war continued in the North, the Iberian Peninsula was still ruled by Arian kingdoms, and Byzantium controlled central and southern Italy…in other words the implementation of the papacy’s “supremacy” hadn’t changed. The only change I can think of is after the siege ended it would have been easier for the pope to send messages - but the pope was sending messages instructing the Church during the siege too, as his letters to Bishop Eutherius in Spain and Bishop Cwsarius in Gaul attest to. So Vigilius was acting as head of the church during the siege of RomeThe Original Catholic Encyclopedia you linked to does not contain the above quote. It’s not from a Catholic encyclopedia at all…the quote is actually from a book entitled “Medieval Europe” written by Charles Bemont and Gabriel Monoe. They claimed that Vigilius’ reign marked the time when popes became more involved in worldly events, but they failed to give any examples of this during Vigilius’ or Pelagius' reign. Information is even more scarce regarding the three popes who followed Pelagius; it's not until we come to the pontificate of Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th Century that we start to see the papacy flex it's proverbial muscles – but that was over 40 years after Vigilius became pope. Please explain what temporal powers were granted to Pope Vigilius.  (May 31, 2014 | post #57)

Seventh-day Adventist

1260 days of the Papacy from 538 AD to 1798

The spiritual authority of the Roman bishop was recognized long before 538AD, and the temporal authority the French took away in 1798 began long after 538AD. It’s ridiculous to claim the Roman Church began in 538 AD; not even the Reformers claimed thatThen you are obviously completely unaware of the full restoration of the Roman church/state by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. And unlike 1929 and the small tract of land called Vatican City, in 1815 the Bishop of Rome’s sovereignty over all of the Papal States was restored in full. So in 1798 the Pope lost a hundred bucks, then in 1815 the full hundred was returned to him; in 1870 he lost the hundred bucks again, but in 1929 Italy decided to return a dollar. Not much of a healing if you ask meYou’re getting your timelines and edicts mixed up. The “supremacy of the pontificate” Novellae was Novel 9 published in 535AD. Novellae 131 was published in 545AD. The letter Justinian wrote in 533AD mentioning papal headship was not a decree…it was a letter written to seek the pope’s approval of the Theopaschite Formula...which shows the pope was acting as head of the Church in 533ADNot so. Emperor Gratian issued a decree recognizing the Bishop of Rome as the “ruler” of the Church body in 378AD; Emperor Valentian III issued a rescript of the same decree in 445AD, declaring that “whatever the authority of the Apostolic See decrees or shall decree, be accepted as law by all…”, and this was before the fall of the Roman Empire and during a period when the secular sword could back the words up. Emperor Justin and several hundred chief bishops signed the Formula of Hormsidas in 519AD that said in part, “… in all things we follow the Apostolic chair, and preach those things which it has resolved upon.” Justin also issued an imperial decree declaring that the true faith was only found in union with the Roman church. Then in 520AD, Justinian (on behalf of Justin) wrote to Pope Hormisdas and recognized him as the “Supreme Pastor”: "Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all." So Justinian’s letter in 533AD was just one of several imperial writings that recognized papal primacy. In fact, Pope John’s response to Justinian in 534AD highlighted that fact when he said, “That this seat is truly the head of all churches, is stated both by the regulations of the fathers, as well as THE STATUTES OF EMPERORS, and is ATTESTED by the reverend address of Your (Justinian’s) Piety.”  (May 31, 2014 | post #56)

Seventh-day Adventist

1260 days of the Papacy from 538 AD to 1798

I keep hearing about these so-called “prerogatives” mentioned in Justinian’s 533AD letter, but I have yet to find them despite having read the letter dozens of times. Would you care to point them out for me? And again, please explain how the power and authority of the papacy “grew, and grew, and grew” as a result of an imperial decree when you believe the imperial power functioned to restrain the papacy. Also, was the temporal power of the papacy growing in 549AD when the Ostrogoths besieged Rome again and successfully took the city? How was Pope Vigilius exercising Justinian's "decrees " in Rome in 550AD when King Totila was ruling the Ostrogothic kingdom from his seat in Rome, holding games in the Circus Maximus, and minting his own coinsHey, fun fact; in the 12th Century the papacy literally received a deathblow when the Roman Commune took control of the city of Rome and established a Roman republic. When Pope Lucius II led a small army on the Capitol to retake control of the city in 1145 he received a mortal wound and died soon afterNo, he did the exact opposite by ignoring the Directory’s requests. As August Fournier wrote, “Instead of striking at the root of Catholicism, as he was instructed to do, he (Napoleon) left the Pope entirely at liberty in all matters pertaining to religion, and Rome unmolested;(Napole on the First, Fournier, pg. 94)”. Napoleon was very much aware of the political importance of the papacy and he acted accordingly when he came into powerIndeed. He died in exile, but still the head of the Catholic Church. Pius’ successor, Pope Pius VII, was elected 4 months after the French Directory dissolved, so the Directory’s desire to see the papacy destroyed would have been a moot point by that time. Napoleon, on the other hand, took steps as First Consul then later as emperor to restore some of the papacy’s temporal authority and he recognized the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Catholic Church.  (May 31, 2014 | post #54)

Seventh-day Adventist

1260 days of the Papacy from 538 AD to 1798

I fail to see how the Roman Catholic Church’s war against the saints would have ended in 1798 when there were still Catholic nations who recognized the spiritual headship of the Bishop of Rome despite his loss of temporal power. Would true Christians in Austria have been any less persecuted after Pope Pius’ imprisonment than before? Did the loss of the Papal States suddenly bring an end to the Spanish Inquisition? The answer to both questions is noThere is no question the Reformers overwhelmingly saw the papacy as the antichrist, but I challenge you to name one Reformer who believed the 1260 days started in 538AD. According to Froom’s “Faith of Our Fathers”, not a single Protestant Reformer placed any prophetic significance in the year 538AD…it was only after 1798 that Protestants began retroactively giving that year importanceOk, so the Roman Empire was restraining the papacy from evolving into the antichrist power, right? Then why is it you believe a Caesar’s attempt to restore the Western Roman Empire in the 6th Century somehow kick-started the papacy’s 1260-year rule? I thought it was the absence of imperial authority that removed the papacy’s restraintsThe papal kingdom was abolished for a brief period of time, I agree, but the papacy itself was not. Papal history is replete with examples of Roman bishops who were imprisoned, exiled, murdered, and/or lost temporal authority, but that did not mean the papacy was abolished. Pope Pius VI was just one in a long line of exiled popes.  (May 31, 2014 | post #53)

Seventh-day Adventist

1260 days of the Papacy from 538 AD to 1798

But a successor to the Papal chair was elected, so obviously the command was ignored. Look, the main problem with that command is that the French Directory had absolutely no power to keep a papal election from happening. Europe still contained Catholic states (like Spain, Portugal, Austria, etc.) and they would have continued recognizing the authority of the bishop of Rome as head of the Church...so even if the Directory had had the audacity to kill the pope and forbid a new election within French borders, a new college of cardinals would have formed in some other Catholic country and a new pope-in-exile would have been raised to govern the church, just like the Avignon popes. The French would have been powerless to stop it.  (May 26, 2014 | post #37)

Seventh-day Adventist

A.D. 538 began the supremacy of Vatican

No, they didn't. By 550AD the only Italian cities containing Roman garrisons were Ravenna, Ancona, and Otranto (Theodoric the Goth, Hodgkin, pg. 362); the rest of Italy was held by the Ostrogoths, including the city of Rome. Because of the Gothic War, Justinian was unable to put his revised law code into force in Italy until the conflict ended in 553AD...a year later he issued a Pragmatic Sanction putting his Code into effect. That didn't happen in 538AD.  (Apr 9, 2014 | post #494)

Seventh-day Adventist

A.D. 538 began the supremacy of Vatican

Belisarius was in the middle of conducting a war throughout northern Italy in 538AD...he didn't have the luxury of enforcing decrees in Rome. The fact is, by 542AD the contemporary historian Procopius testified that the entire fabric of Roman power in Italy "was utterly destroyed in a short space of time" (Gothic War, Book VII, Ch. i); by 545AD, Belisarius told Justinian in a letter that the Goths had regained control over so much Italian territory he was unable to gather enough taxes to support his army. Sorry...you'd have to wait until the war ended in 553AD before Justinian's Code could enforced.  (Apr 1, 2014 | post #479)

Seventh-day Adventist

A.D. 538 began the supremacy of Vatican

Are posters on this thread arguing that 538AD was an SDA invention? I certainly have not argued that. Also, I'm confused how you think the link you provided bulwarks 538AD when the writer was championing 533AD as the commencement date. I do find it slightly ironic that the writer believed the “coercing power, or law, of the (Western) Roman Empire” hindered the revelation of the lawless one in the 5th Century, and yet you seem to believe that the rebirth of the Western Roman Empire by Justinian in the 6th Century and the reestablishment of direct imperial law in Italy somehow freed the papacy to be revealed as the lawless one.  (Dec 26, 2013 | post #472)

Seventh-day Adventist

A.D. 538 began the supremacy of Vatican

EDIT: "However the Goths DID lay siege to Rome in 546AD and 548AD, and in both instances they were very successful in regaining control over the city."  (Dec 11, 2013 | post #466)

Seventh-day Adventist

A.D. 538 began the supremacy of Vatican

Andy, a few things… - A.C. Flick, the man who wrote A History of the Later Roman Empire, made no mention of 538AD being a pivotal point in papal history, nor did he claim Vigilius gained secular or religious authority in that year. In Flick’s opinion, Justinian’s “arbitrary interference with the affairs of the Western Church by the imperial authority at Constantinople (Justinian) brought the papal hierarchy TO THE BRINK OF RUIN” (Rise of the Medieval Church, pg. 297) - The Ostrogoths did not try to retake Rome two years later, and neither Hodgkin nor Deihl documented it. However the Goths DID lay siege to Rome in 536AD and 538AD, and in both instances they were very successful in regaining control over the city. In the latter instance, Rome remained a Gothic possession for three years; According to Hodgkin, after 550AD King Totila recalled the Roman senate, conducted games in the Circus Maximus, and issued his own coinage, (Theodoric the Goth, Hodgkin, pg. 362). Therefore, your source should acknowledge that the Goths “power in Rome” did not end in 538AD. - In Diehl’s chapter in the Cambridge Medieval History, he clearly wrote the imperial restoration was “undone in a few months” after 541AD, and that “for eleven years Totila was able to hold at bay the whole force of the Empire, to reconquer the whole of Italy, and to ruin the reputation of Belisarius” (pg. 16). Maybe your source skipped over that part, lol. Also, a few pages later Diehl recognized that the reigns of popes Vigilius and Pelagius represented a period of humiliation, and the authority of the popes that followed was “discredited in the entire West by the affair of the Three Chapters, shaken in Italy by the schism, and still further lessened by the privileges that the imperial benevolence granted to the church of Ravenna, since the town was the capital of reconquered Italy”(pg.48-49). And somehow your source used Diehl to “prove” that Vigilius held “undisputed authority in the West”, or that the Goths’ power ended in 538AD? Unbelievable. NOS  (Dec 11, 2013 | post #465)

Seventh-day Adventist

1844 Can B Proven but not by SDA's 538 or other Lame bogu...

Laodicea was just as clear as Orleans III about equating Saturday with Judaizing. Canon 29 said, "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, the Sabbath, but shall work on that day", and it later warned Christians if "they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.” Fortunately the canons of Laodicea and Orleans III consisted of local ecclesiastical law and had limited reach  (Sep 25, 2013 | post #289)

Seventh-day Adventist

1844 Can B Proven but not by SDA's 538 or other Lame bogu...

Just remember Daniel 7:8 addresses vestigial roots, not vegetation. But I'd imagine that horns pulled out of an animal would not be able to be "replanted ", so I guess the point of your example is still valid.  (Aug 17, 2013 | post #274)