Papal Seal
- Thread starter showme
- Start date
If no one will take a crack at why the papal seal has the image of Peter and Paul, as well as the cross, I will add my two cents worth.
The Papal authority, represented by the seal, comes from Constantine the king of Rome, who institutionalized the church by means of convening the Nicene Council. Constantine's vision at the grotto of Apollo, was that he should conquer the world under the image of the cross, therefore the pagan symbol of the cross became a prominate image of the church. As Constantine was the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to deceive those "who dwell on the earth" (Rev 13:11), he went and established the church, and built basilicas, glorifying both Peter and Paul, who would be the pillars of his state church, and who would fit the description of "two horns like a lamb", being as they were both apparently Christlike.
The Papal authority, represented by the seal, comes from Constantine the king of Rome, who institutionalized the church by means of convening the Nicene Council. Constantine's vision at the grotto of Apollo, was that he should conquer the world under the image of the cross, therefore the pagan symbol of the cross became a prominate image of the church. As Constantine was the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to deceive those "who dwell on the earth" (Rev 13:11), he went and established the church, and built basilicas, glorifying both Peter and Paul, who would be the pillars of his state church, and who would fit the description of "two horns like a lamb", being as they were both apparently Christlike.
OK. Have you checked out the history of the seal?
Not quite ... The seal with the heads of Peter and Paul each side of a cross did not come into use until the 11th century — eight hundred years later. I doubt Constantine had any place in the decision.
The authority of the Latin Church rests with the bishops, not with the emperors. Were that true, then the Arian debate would never have happened, and various schisms would never have occurred either.
The schism between orthodox Christianity (Latin and Greek) and the Egyptian (Coptic) Church for example, was a huge economic blow to the empire. Had the emperors had any say at all, that would never have happened. The Typos of Emperor Constans II was an Imperial edict issued by him in 647/8 and was meant to silence theological debate. It didn't.
Pope St. Martin of Rome refused to accept it, and was kidnapped by the Easterners, taken to Constantinople, tried, tortured and exiled to the Crimea. St. Maximus the Confessor was likewise tried for his refusal, he had his hand cut off and his tongue cut out, and likewise exiled.
(The authority of the Emperor held more sway in the Greek Church, for certain geopolitical reasons, but has never had any authority in the Latin West.)
Peter, in the Latin Tradition, is regarded as the head of the Church on earth (from Matthew 16:18, John 21), and Paul one of its foremost Apostles. They would be an obvious choice.
God bless,
Thomas
Amergin
Well-Known Member
I admit I have no idea who designed the seal. I don't remember ever seeing it.
The Orthodox Church became the compulsory religion of the Empire through Constantine I. However, the Arian Christianity came from the epistles of Paul and teachings of Bishop Arius. I think it is a century or older than Athanasian Trinitarian Orthodox Christianity. This was the only legal Christian Church under Emperor Theodosius II. He was emperor and head of the Church. He began the systematic persecution of Non-Athanasian Christians and all Pagans.
At his death, the Empire was again divided into an Eastern and Western half. The religion was still Emperor directed. He even appointed the Patriarchs. The Eastern Empire had almost all of the resources, trade, money and educated populations. In 406 CE, a series of German Barbarians invaded Gaul, entered Spain and conquered Carthage. Britain was abandoned by the Romans (much like Canaanite cities abandoned by Egypt.) In both cases, Barbarians invaded, ravaged, raped, and destroyed the societies.
The troops were pulled all back into Italy under Stilicho to defend the historic centre of the Empire. The rest fell into German Arian chaotic tribalism. Finally, Italy fell to Barbarian mercenaries under Odoacer in 476 CE. The Eastern Emperor sent the powerful Ostrogoth Tribe of Germans to conquer Italy in the name of the Empire. A Barbarian Arian Ostrogothic King, Theodoric, ruled Italy.
Some 60 years later, the Eastern Emperor, Justinian, vowed to reconquer the West. During that time, Rome was out of reach of the real Emperor. The more recently proclaimed Patriarch of Rome was beyond the touch of the Emperor. This was the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church in schism from the Imperial Orthodox Catholic Church.
Eastern Patriarchs and bishops obeyed Justinian or subsequent Byzantine Emperors. Emperors were superior to Patriarchs and bishops. In Rome, there was no Orthodox King or Emperor. The Arian King Theodoric ruled independently despite his pledge to recognise the Eastern Emperor as Roman Emperor on the condition that the Emperor makes no military moves against him. Rome was cut off completely from the main Orthodox Catholic Church. This was the beginning of the Roman Catholic Schismatic Church, which spread authority over the remains of the Western Empire.
.
I think that is also confirmed by Gibbon's history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Agreed.
Peter is an obscure personality in Rome, mostly mythological in my opinion. Paul in fact was revered but his teachings led straight into Arianism. That was overlooked in the political situation that led to the Roman Catholic Church. Gregory the Great or Leo fostered the notion that the Bishop of Rome was head of all Christianity. However, Christians in the Eastern Empire, the Serbs, Bulgars, Armenians, and Georgians stuck to the original Patriarchal system. The Copts were distant enough to keep old traditions long outlawed in the Empire.
Then Justinian’s reconquest of Italy was nullified by Lombard recon quest. When it was revived at Frankish pressure in the Papal States, Roman Bishops were called Popes or Papa. It was solidified when the Frankish empire of Charlemagne protected the autonomy of the Papal States. Popes became Temporal or Monarchs of a Nation. It lasted until 1870 when French troops left to fight the Prussians. The newly united Kingdom of Italy conquered it. The pope lacked an earthly kingdom until Benito Mussolini restored the Pope's Kingdom as Vatican City which was immediately recognised by Adolph Hitler in his Concordat with Pope Pius XII (1935 I think) making it an Official Religion of the Third Reich along with Lutheranism.
The Super-Christian USA was rather late in recognising the Pope and Vatican City as political identities.
Amergin
The Nicene Council was convened by Constantine, who was Pontifex Maximus, to bring the Arian debate to a conclusion. Initially he sided with Arius, but for political reasons he settled for the Trinity solution. On the other hand, the next emperor, his son, Constantinus, for faith reasons, threw out Athanasius and his Trinity doctine. King trumps bishop.
As for Peter and Paul, it was Constantine who glorified Peter and Paul by building them cross shaped churches, called basilicas. It was the sign of the cross for which Constantine was to conquer the world per his vision at the Grotto of Apollo. Apollo being the dragon, who was the authority behind Constantine, the beast with two horns like a lamb. (Rev 13:11) The two horns like a lamb being Peter and Paul, the figures used to deceive those "who dwell on the earth". (Rev 13:14)
As for who is head of the Church: Mt 23:8,"and do not be called leaders; for one is your leader,..." That leader is not Paul, nor is it Peter.
As for the Pontif's ring, having the heads of Peter and Paul, along with the cross, this is just a continuation of the Pontifex Maximus Constantine's use of the cross and Peter and Paul to deceive the world.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
There really is no one seal (see http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/decoration/seal7.htm or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_coat_of_arms). What is your point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_coat_of_arms). What is your point?
Amergin
Well-Known Member
The point is that the popes gave homage to Peter, Paul, and the cross. Yeshua didn't preach the gospel of the cross, and he certainly didn't teach that anyone was to be called leader of the church (Mt 23:10). As for Peter, he called Peter "Satan", and said he was a stumbling block. The Pope, supposedly Peter's heir, is a "stumbling block"' also.
As for each Pope having a different personification of the seal, what is your point? Neither Peter nor Paul are the pillars of the "true" church. They are pillars of the Pauline "Christian" church. The Roman church might have been a little better off if they hadn't thrown out the commandment of not having graven images. As for the ancient pagan symbol of the cross, keeping the commandments of the dragon, given at the Grotto of Apollo, doesn't seem like a good path to walk.
Dream
Well-Known Member
showme said:
The legendary true church that claims to have existed as a few scattered groups down through the centuries. How happy are the chosen few who have no responsibility for their brothers. Lord Lord they have driven out demons in Jesus name, prophesied and done important work in his name going past circumcision to fetish, from cutting to cropping. Jesus isn't coming back fast enough, so they will bring him back by culling the weak.
Lets pursue the seal's meaning. But you aren't interested in the seal's meaning. The baby is what you throw out and the bathwater is what you keep.
Right thus far, but the rest is largely erroneous and little more than a matter of your opinion. The weight of evidence suggests otherwise.
The fact is, that if the Emperors had the authority that you and Amergin assume, then there would never have been schisms within the community — Constantine called the Council to head off just that, and in that, he failed.
I think the emperors didn't really give a hoot who believed what, just so long as everyone believed in the same thing and thus peace within his borders was assured.
The evidence of dispute and schism shows beyond doubt that emperors were largely powerless over the Church, even when they killed pope Martin I it did not silence theological dispute.
In the East, the emperors had more luck (iconoclasm and the sop to the Moslems) and where they were lucky shows how quickly they would define faith to suit political expediency. The rise of Constantinople clearly demonstrates the political will to control the Church as it overthrew the traditional authority of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch — but it, and the emperors, failed against Rome.
God bless
Thomas
You are right that Constantine didn't care what anyone believed, except maybe his good old mother. Like Nimrod, Constantine had a complex relationship with his mother.
Constantine was into the consolidation of his political power. On the other hand, the church was relegated to the be eaten by the lions prior to Constantine, and after Constantine, it was the state church. The power was with the emperor. Without Roman support, the Pauline church was simply lion food. On the other hand, when the emperor did care what happened, it was the cause of the emperor that prevailed as long as he was emperor. Such as in the case of Constantinus and his over throw of Athanasius and the Trinitiy doctrine.
As for the power of Rome in the Trinity dispute, Constantine shipped out Arius, and had his books burned, and threatened death to anyone found in possession of any writings of Arius and his counter Trinity theme.
In general, Rome didn't care what the church believed, but whether it helped politically or not. On the other hand, the daughters of Babylon were powerless without the heads of the beast to sit on. The dragon was the authority behind heads of the beast (Rev 13:2), and Rome was the power behind the church of Rome. This is basically about the "ruler of the world", the dragon, and how the dragon's authority was put into effect.
The beast with two horns like a lamb, Constantine, was simply the 7th head of the beast per Rev 17, described as the beast with two horns like a lamb, who was to deceive those who dwell on the earth per Rev 13:14. These two horns like a lamb, Christlike leaders, were Peter and Paul, which are the part of the churches seal, found as a sign on the hand, in the form of a ring, of the Roman church's "leader", the Pontif.