XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism   
   From: duckgumbo32@cox.net   
      
   On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:30:45 GMT, Dave Oldridge    
   wrote:   
      
   >duke  wrote in   
   >news:nr8ci51s1glbcpltvkej7um4tajulth584@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:21:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>As I tried to tell you, I'm not arguing whether the sperm is half-way   
   >>>>in, or has already starting building a home.  Life begins at   
   >>>>conception, not birth.   
   >>>   
   >>>Life is continuous.  There are events along the way, some more   
   >>>significant than others.  There are nearly nine months separating   
   >>>implantation from birth.   
   >>   
   >>Yep, life begins at conception and ends at natural death.   
   >   
   >No, actually the gametes are alive before conception.   
      
   So is skin.  Now, when you want to get back to when the life of a human being   
   begins, get back to me.   
      
   >>>>The Pope was in place in the CC, western and eastern divisions,   
   >>>>before the schism.  The Pope was still in place in the western   
   >>>>division afterwards, to be renamed the RCC.   
   >>   
   >>>Actually, there was more or less a "big five" in the early days of the   
   >>>established Church, those being Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome   
   >>>and Constantinople.  When Rome and Constantinople (regrettably)   
   >>>excommunicated one another, things became more complex.   
   >>   
   >>The Pope was given his job description in Jerusalem in 33AD by Jesus   
   >>himself and is still in place in 2009AD.   
      
   >And your authority for this is that some bishop of Rome declared it?   
      
   Nope, scripture.   
      
   >>>>I don't know the term "LCC".   
      
   >>>Liberal Catholic Church.  Though I'm doctrinally closer to the EOC   
   >>>than to most LCC bishops these days.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>I would guess all doctrines are novel at some point.   
   >>   
   >>>>>Yep, including the notion that the bishop of Rome is Peter's   
   >>>>>successor as overall leader of the Church (not just as bishop of   
   >>>>>Rome).  Peter served as bishop in Antioch and Alexandria before   
   >>>>>Rome.   
   >>   
   >>>>Uh, actually, Jesus assigned the "Pope = poppa = father"  job   
   >>>>description-title to Simon Peter in Jerusalem.  Peter eventually   
   >>>>settled in Rome/Vatican later on. And as successors to St. Peter, the   
   >>>>man selected as Bishop of Rome is also the Pope.   
   >>   
   >>>The first part is correct.  The last, not necessarily so and there is   
   >>>not unanimity on the doctrine (clearly).   
   >>   
   >>Both parts are correct.  The line of successor to Peter has never been   
   >>broken.   
      
   >The succession of bishops of Rome is, indeed, intact.  How many OTHER   
   >lineages go back to Peter?  I'm sure Peter consecrated more than one in   
   >his career.   
      
   Well, manhood does.  So does "live human".   
      
   >For example, the Orthodox bishop of Alexandria is called "pope" by his   
   >churches.   
      
   But not successor to Peter.   
      
   The Dukester, American-American   
   *****   
   "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."   
   Pope Paul VI   
   *****   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)