[dwashbur]

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

OK, I know why I missed it now. Thanks.

I assume you were referring to this paragraph?

The Epistle to the Romans is utterly inconsistent with any conception on his part, that Rome was the see and residence of a bishop holding any other than fraternal relations with himself. It is very noteworthy that it is devoid of expressions, elsewhere made emphatic,483483 See To the Tralliaus, cap. 13. Much might have been made, had it been found here, out of the reference to Christ the High Priest (Philadelphians, cap. 9). Which would have been much insisted upon had they been found herein. Think what use would have been made of it, had the words which he addresses to the Smyrnæans (chap. viii.) to strengthen their fidelity to Polycarp, been found in this letter to the Romans, especially as in this letter we first find the use of the phrase “Catholic Church” in patristic writings. He defines it as to be found “where Jesus Christ is,” words which certainly do not limit it to communion with a professed successor of St. Peter.

[arcura]

JoeT and dwashbur,
Thank you both for your enlightening posts,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[I Newton]

How is it through all that, we think we can prduce literature written by Catholics as proof that the RCC is the true church?

I find it quite remarkable

[JoeT777]

How is it through all that, we think we can produce literature written by Catholics as proof that the RCC is the true church?


I find it quite remarkable

The discussion, which you seemed to have come in late on, is about the use of the word 'Catholic' in the primitive Church, including both the Apostolic age, and the period immediately following. This would be between Christ's death and resurrection and about 325 A.D. Catholic's don't believe that the Church came out of the womb, so to speak, with the title “Catholic Church” painted above their doors. They do believe that the Gospels and the Epistles tell a story of the formation of such a Church; what is today called the Roman Catholic Church. That Church was founded by Christ, built on the apostolic chair of Peter and handed to us as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is “one” church in any sense that you would like to think of it; one as in 'only', one as in 'unified', or one as in One Body of Christ. It is holy in that she strives for divinity in all the virtues and vices of her human nature. The church is called 'catholic' because of Her universality of faith; it's meant for all mankind of all stripes, shapes, forms, and cultures. This Church is Apostolic in that it follows the teachings of the Gospels taught us by the Twelve Apostles that were ordained and commissioned by Christ to regenerate mankind in baptism and to teach of His Kingdom.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is considered a saint, but not a doctor of the Catholic Church. As I mentioned, some hold to the tradition (legend) that he was the child held by Christ in Mark 9:35; whether this is true has been lost in antiquity – it really isn't a matter of faith whether he was. You might say he acquired his saint's crown when he was martyred. The Apostles St. John is said to have consecrated his appointment over the See of Antioch. St. Ignatius in many ways is an example worthy of following for a saintly life.

However, Ignatius wasn't a Pope and he wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and he wasn't a 'doctor' of the Church, as history tells us. But, he is a holy example to follow as we strive to persevere “with fear and trembling" to work out our salvation, (Phi 2:12). Ignatius was taken into custody during the persecution of Domitian. In a manuscript called Martyrium Ignatii written by a contemporary is an eyewitness account of his bravery in St. Ignatius' sufferings for Christ. Roman law was just (by Caesar's standards) and all he Ignatius had to do was renounce his faith anytime before becoming the Christian version of Purina Cat Chow in the Flavian circus. He stood fast, during his lengthy captivity and long Journey to Rome writing daily – which by the way took several months. If I recollect correctly, his guards complained that they had to stop too often to write his letters and so Ignatius could speak to the large throngs of faithful that came out for his blessings.

I might be wrong but the Epistle to the Smyrnian's was probably one of his last few letters. The significance isn't so much that he used the word 'Catholic' in this letter; what is significant is that he points to and speaks of a cooperate church which Protestants like to claim didn't exist. This is really the significance of the letter; St. Ignatius was 'Roman Catholic' before being Catholic was cool and within the living memory of Christ.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

How is it through all that, we think we can prduce literature written by Catholics as proof that the RCC is the true church?

I find it quite remarkable

A better question is this: sure, they're the original. They can trace lineage further back than any of the rest of us, maybe even to the New Testament church. But is that a good thing?

Paul's writings tell us one thing for sure: the early church was a mess. Galatians and the Corinthian letters, to a lesser degree also Colossians, show us a church in turmoil, arguing over legalistic matters, sometimes engaging in quite profligate behavior, racism, favoritism, following every wind of teaching that tickled their fancies, to name just a few. Is this really the ideal to which we should be aspiring??

Every church organization has traditions. Those of the Catholic Church happen to be older than some of the others. The question is, does being older make them better? That takes us back to the whole Peter/apostolic succession question, which brings us full circle. Those who accept Peter as the founder and accept the idea that the popes are legitimate successors with his authority say yes. Those who don't accept that say no. Again, you pays your money and you takes your pick.

[Wondergirl]

A better question is this: sure, they're the original. They can trace lineage further back than any of the rest of us, maybe even to the New Testament church. But is that a good thing?

Paul's writings tell us one thing for sure: the early church was a mess.

We do have to give the Catholic Church credit, though, for pulling it all together and turning that "mess" into a glorious enterprise that held Western Europe together during the "Dark Ages" after the decline of the Roman Empire, and was the curator of art, literature, music, philosophy, politics, science, and math throughout the Renaissance.

[450donn]

And we also need to give them credit for persecution, murder, burning, torture of those that did not choose to follow their brand of legalistic religion.
And since they were established/chartered some 400 years after the resurrection of Jesus they are probably still NOT the oldest established church. Several of the orthodox religions can lay claim to that.

[Wondergirl]

And we also need to give them credit for persecution, murder, burning, torture

At least fundamentalist Protestant churches have never done any of that nor have they broken spirits or crushed dreams. Heck, no.

[450donn]

No one said that except you.
BTW you still owe me a discussion about your beloved Obama and how "good" he has been in his first year plus. That ought to be good for about 100 pages of discussions LOL.

[Wondergirl]

you still owe me a discussion about your beloved Obama and how "good" he has been in his first year plus. That ought to be good for about 100 pages of discussions

We could do that in 25 words or less.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
Thank you much for that recognition of the good that The Catholic Church has done.
Yes there were some bad days and people in The Church over the centuries, BUT much that has been said about that is stretched and very misleading; some not true at all.
In fact much of the persecution blamed on the Church was really done by governments.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[dwashbur]

Wondergirl,
Thank you much for that recognition of the good that The Catholic Church has done.
Yes there were some bad days and people in The Church over the centuries, BUT much that has been said about that is stretched and very misleading; some not true at all.
In fact much of the persecution blamed on the Church was really done by governments.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes, much of it was done by governments, but at the time most of it happened it was difficult if not impossible to separate the two. Having said that, nobody is innocent of looking down on someone else because of a difference of belief, and if someone wants to point solely at the Catholic church for persecution and all that, they can try to explain Ulrich Zwingli to me, among others.

They all did it. At some point, we're all guilty of forgetting what Jesus actually said, "they will know you are my disciples by your love for each other." Somewhere along the way, every last one of us and all Christians down through history have rewritten that as "they will know you are my disciples by your correct doctrine or by what you don't do or by how you dress or by anything except your love for each other."

I like to think that promoting Christian love among us, even when we disagree about some things, is part of what places like this are all about.

[Athos]

... nobody is innocent of looking down on someone else because of a difference of belief,

What most people miss is the historical environment of the Middle Ages - assigning, anachronistically, today's attitudes and beliefs to then.

Political philosophy then assumed a person's belief was essential to the sound running of the state, and those who differed were a threat to the state. What we today label as heresy was considered at the time to be more akin to sedition.

What was posted here today by Wondergirl implies (correctly) that the Catholic Church had an enormous burden bringing the barbarian tribes out of barbarism into a more acceptable societal norm. The Church accomplished that task very well.

It took a thousand years and tough people demanded a tough response, although it was, over time, increasingly tendered with mercy and justice.

Today's Western Civilization is unthinkable without the contribution of the Catholic Church over those many centuries in just about every field. Like any huge organization, mistakes were made - especially in hindsight - but the good far outweighs the bad.

[JoeT777]

Yes, much of it was done by governments, but at the time most of it happened it was difficult if not impossible to separate the two. Having said that, nobody is innocent of looking down on someone else because of a difference of belief, and if someone wants to point solely at the Catholic church for persecution and all that, they can try to explain Ulrich Zwingli to me, among others.

They all did it. At some point, we're all guilty of forgetting what Jesus actually said, "they will know you are my disciples by your love for each other." Somewhere along the way, every last one of us and all Christians down through history have rewritten that as "they will know you are my disciples by your correct doctrine or by what you don't do or by how you dress or by anything except your love for each other."

I like to think that promoting Christian love among us, even when we disagree about some things, is part of what places like this are all about.

I would also add that; much is blown out of perspective when we make judgments of human nature based on our modern sensibilities. Take for example the first inquisition which came out of southern France where the majority had adopted the Cathars heresy. Catharism was a sect with strong Gnostic elements that thrived in the 11th through the 13 centuries. Holding dualist and Gnostic faiths, Cathars held theological views such as the world was created evil by Satan, while considering God of the Old Testament to be the moral equal and opposite of Satan – the yin yang of good and evil. Many hold that Catharism had its theological genesis in Gnosticism with an aberrant mix of Judaism and Mohammedanism.

In southern France they formed opposition to the clergy and the Catholic Church. They perceived the individual to be the source of moral, spiritual, and political authority and as such viewed the Catholic Church as corrupt. Procreation was considered undesirable and child birth was discouraged. They considered sex as a perversion, but at the same timed considered recreational sex as preferable to sex reserved for the purpose of procreation. It seems that taking on concubines was a moral alternative to marriage. It's really interesting that the Cathars could hold such distain for a natural act while finding recreational sex healthy – it hurts the head doesn't it? - by refusing to reproduce it's a wonder they lasted two hundred years.

Much like the radical Islamists of today, this movement can be viewed as the cradle of the Protestant movement. Morally dysfunctional societies such as Cathars refused the authority of the Church. They defended their radical attacks against the Church as morally just, refused social regulation, taxes, social and moral bans while feeling justified in any moral disorder proclaiming to be above any moral truth taught by the Catholic Church. – When it's in black and white, it's amazing how much they sound like today's secularists with a twisted freaky dualist god.

Warren H Carroll in The Glory of Christendom makes the point,

“The 'black legend' of the Inquisition has been the most successful of all historical propaganda offensives against the Catholic Church; and the difficulty of responding to it persuasively is vastly increased by the almost complete inability of modern man to understand how any society could regard a man's religion as a matter of life and death. But in fact the heretic in Christendom was in every sense of the word a revolutionary, as dangerous to public order and personal safety as yesterday's Communist or today's terrorist.”

[arcura]

Thanks much for those recent posts.
Fred

[TUT317]

Hi joe,

Is this another anti-liberal political statement?

Last time it was Pallen on,'Liberalism is a Sin'

These political statements all suffer from the same problem. That is, they use remote facts to draw extraordinarily broad generalizations.


It is possible to be a liberal and a Christian at the same time.

Is that the definition of a, 'freaky dualist God'?

Regards

Tut

[JoeT777]

Hi joe,

Is this another anti-liberal political statement?

Last time it was Pallen on,'Liberalism is a Sin'

These political statements all suffer from the same problem. That is, they use remote facts to draw extraordinarily broad generalizations.


It is possible to be a liberal and a Christian at the same time.

Is that the definition of a, 'freaky dualist God'?

Regards

Tut

Dualism is a cosmological view that there is a conflict of good versus evil, a good creator and a bad creator. The particular type of dualism that the Catharists held essentially was a belief in a good versus evil spiritual universe. The creator was two beings, good and bad supreme beings, i.e. competing gods. Its roots are from the 3rd century Manichæism. A variant called Albigensest were found in southern France. As I understand it they held that the good supreme being created the spiritual world and the evil supreme being created the material world. The held such beliefs that relationships within marriage was banned, consequently they took on multiple concubines. Most every moral principle Christians hold they turned upside down; suicide was highly praised, abandoning one’s spouse was considered a moral virtue. They believed that the soul transfigured from living being to living being.
See CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Albigenses

Nevertheless when looking at our present day society, we see many of the same errors in those that hold to the religion of secularism, i.e. in my opinion freaky.

If you need a refresher course on my opinion of 'Liberalism is a Sin', I’ll be happy to oblige.


JoeT

[TUT317]

Dualism is a cosmological view that there is a conflict of good versus evil, a good creator and a bad creator. The particular type of dualism that the Catharists held essentially was a belief in a good versus evil spiritual universe. The creator was two beings, good and bad supreme beings, i.e., competing gods. Its roots are from the 3rd century Manichæism. A variant called Albigensest were found in southern France. As I understand it they held that the good supreme being created the spiritual world and the evil supreme being created the material world. The held such beliefs that relationships within marriage was banned, consequently they took on multiple concubines. Most every moral principle Christians hold they turned upside down; suicide was highly praised, abandoning one's spouse was considered a moral virtue. They believed that the soul transfigured from living being to living being.
See CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Albigenses

Nevertheless when looking at our present day society, we see many of the same errors in those that hold to the religion of secularism, i.e., in my opinion freaky.

If you need a refresher course on my opinion of 'Liberalism is a Sin', I'll be happy to oblige.


JoeT

Hi Joe,

Dualism doesn't have to be cosmological. However, from what you have outlined I would say what your are talking about could be regarded as, 'cosmological dualism'. There are numerous types of dualistic theories.

Within the context of modern society cosmological dualism no longer applies. Despite what you might think it is not a battle of good against evil. Despite what Pallen says in 'Liberalism is a Sin'; secularism is NOT a rationalist theory.(Something that needs to be accepted in modern times). It is an empirical theory. Are you prepared to argue that it is not? You and Pallen might think empiricism is evil but this does not make it a religious/rationalist view.

As far as secularism and religion is concerned in modern society you seem to be confusing binary opposition with dualism.

Regards

Tut

[JoeT777]

Hi Joe,

Dualism doesn't have to be cosmological. However, from what you have outlined I would say what your are talking about could be regarded as, 'cosmological dualism'. There are numerous types of dualistic theories.

Within the context of modern society cosmological dualism no longer applies. Despite what you might think it is not a battle of good against evil. Despite what Pallen says in 'Liberalism is a Sin'; secularism is NOT a rationalist theory.(Something that needs to be accepted in modern times). It is an empirical theory. Are you prepared to argue that it is not? You and Pallen might think empiricism is evil but this does not make it a religious/rationalist view.

As far as secularism and religion is concerned in modern society you seem to be confusing binary opposition with dualism.

Regards

Tut

So you don't think they are in binary opposition? Let's look at it; secularism is “the improvement of this life by material means”, i.e. the exclusion of God in the matters of man… that science is the available Providence of man and that that it is good to do good whether there be other good or not, that the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good" {Newadvent.org}. Liberals produce a secular government empty of God's morals; objective truth is lost. Three historical examples: 1) The French Revolution that produced the “Reign of Terror” lasting 2 years, killing 100's of thousands, perhaps millions of Catholics, 2) The communist revolution; killed nearly 60 million over a period of 80 years, 3) The National Socialist German Workers' Party (NAZI party), an autocratic socialists government noted for killing nearly 11 million Jews and Catholics. [The National socialist German Worker's Party was a liberal political party - in spite of rhetoric from today's left who call conservatives “Nazis.”].

Rationalism and secularism stem from holding an absolute sovereignty and independence from God's authority. Looking inward for authority, each rationalist holds the necessary individual authority to establish basic cosmic truths. This seems to transform into complete independence from any social morality not otherwise originating from the interior. This degradation continues with the implied right to judge moral and civil law. The argument extended is to say that God's laws are relative; “what's true for you, may not be true for me”. Polls and consensus becomes the important indicator for right and wrong; rather than God's immutable truth. And finally, in the extreme the relativism requires absolute freedom of thought in matters of morality and religion.

Now we have secularism and rationalism in exclusively in opposition to all these traits. So, yes in many ways there is binary opposition in secularism and the Christian faith. Truth is God's will, thus the Christian faith holds that there is a Divine Sovereignty in the affairs of man. Basic comic Truths is God's will.


If secularism isn't rationalism and subjectivism then what is it?

Rationalism: Rationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subjectivism: Subjectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dualism: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Dualism

Gnosticism: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gnosticism

[TUT317]

Joe,

Did you actually read the Wikipedia on, 'Rationalism'

Rationalism is a method in which the criterion of truth IS NOT SENSORY but INTELLECTUAL and DEDUCTIVE. How does this relate to a liberal theories such as Utilitarianism? The answer is that it doesn't because liberal theories are empirically based.

The other possibility is that you are confused over the role rationalism plays in these science based theories. .


Tut